Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	12 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	Commitments and Contingent Liabilities In addition to commitments and obligations incurred in our business, we are subject to a variety of claims incidental to the normal conduct of our business, including claims from customers and vendors, pending and potential legal actions for damages, governmental investigations, and other matters. The Company is vigorously defending itself against claims in the legal proceedings described below. If we are unsuccessful in defending, or if we determine to settle, any of these matters, we may be required to pay substantial sums, be subject to injunction or be forced to change how we operate our business, which could have a material adverse impact on our financial position or results of operations. Unless otherwise stated, we are unable to reasonably estimate the loss or a range of possible loss for the matters described below. Often, it is not reasonably possible for us 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 below 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. We review loss contingencies at least quarterly, to determine whether the loss probability has changed and whether we can make a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. When we determine that a loss from a claim is probable and reasonably estimable, we record a liability in the amount of our estimate for the ultimate loss. We also provide 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 our recorded liability. I. Litigation and Claims Involving Distribution of Controlled Substances The Company is a defendant in many cases asserting claims related to distribution of controlled substances to pharmacies. We often 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 United States, and in Puerto Rico and Canada. They contain a variety of causes of action, including negligence, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, as well as alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 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 proceeding 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-28-04. At present, there are approximately 1,700 cases under the jurisdiction of the MDL court. On December 19, 2018, the court dismissed the City of Akron’s public nuisance claim and denied dismissal of all other claims challenged in defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court has set a trial date of October 21, 2019 for the claims brought by Cuyahoga County, Ohio and Summit County, Ohio. The Company is also named in more than 240 similar state court cases in 37 states plus Puerto Rico. These include actions filed by sixteen 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. Some of the state courts have ruled on defendants’ motions to dismiss. In the Connecticut coordinated actions, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on January 8, 2019 and dismissed all claims filed by 21 municipalities; plaintiffs appealed this decision on January 22, 2019. In the New York coordinated actions, the court denied the distributors’ motion to dismiss on July 17, 2018; the distributor defendants appealed this decision on August 3, 2018. In the action filed by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the court, on December 12, 2018, dismissed plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim and declined to dismiss the remaining claims; the distributor defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on December 27, 2018. On December 29, 2018, the court denied the distributors’ motion to dismiss in a case filed by eight West Virginia counties in Marshall County, West Virginia. On March 8, 2019, the distributors filed a petition for writ of prohibition seeking discretionary review of this denial by the West Virginia Supreme Court. In the case file by the Delaware Attorney General, on February 4, 2019, the court dismissed all the causes of action except the claims for negligence and consumer fraud. On February 27, 2019, the court in the action brought by Clark County, Nevada denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss; the defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration of this decision. In the suit filed against the Company by the Attorney General of West Virginia in January 2016, on May 1, 2019, the parties reached a settlement of all claims in the suit against McKesson. State of West Virginia ex rel. Patrick Morrisey v. McKesson Corp., Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia, Case No. 16-C-1. On May 2, 2019, the court entered an order dismissing the State’s complaint as part of the parties’ settlement. Under the settlement agreement, McKesson paid $14.5 million on May 3, 2019, and will pay five additional installments of $4.5 million over the next five years. The agreement provides that funds from the settlement will be used in support of state initiatives to combat the opioid epidemic. The settlement does not include any admission of liability, and McKesson expressly denies wrongdoing. On April 3, 2017, Eli Inzlicht, a purported shareholder, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against certain officers and directors of the Company and the Company as a nominal defendant, alleging violations of fiduciary duties relating to the Company’s previously disclosed agreement with the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) and the Department of Justice and various United States Attorneys’ offices to settle all potential administrative and civil claims relating to investigations about the Company’s suspicious order reporting practices for controlled substances, and seeking restitution and disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the defendants from the Company and attorneys’ fees, all in unspecified amounts, Inzlicht v. McKesson Corporation, et.al., No. 5:17-cv-01850. On July 26, 2017, Vladimir Gusinsky, as trustee for the Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust, a purported shareholder, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the same court based on similar allegations, Vladimir Gusinsky, as Trustee for the Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust v. McKesson Corporation, et.al., No. 5:17-cv-4248. On October 9, 2017, the court consolidated the two matters, In re McKesson Corporation Derivative Litigation, No. 4:17-cv-1850. On January 5, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated suit. On May 14, 2018, the court denied in part and granted in part the motions to dismiss. On September 17, 2018, a Special Litigation Committee established by the Board of Directors of the Company moved to stay the entire litigation while the Special Litigation Committee conducts an independent investigation concerning the plaintiffs’ allegations. On November 13, 2018, the court granted the motion to stay as to deposition discovery only. On October 17, 2017, Chaile Steinberg, a purported shareholder, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain officers and directors of the Company and the Company as a nominal defendant, alleging violations of fiduciary duties relating to the Company’s previously disclosed agreement with the DEA and the Department of Justice and various United States Attorneys’ offices to settle all potential administrative and civil claims relating to investigations about the Company’s suspicious order reporting practices for controlled substances, and seeking damages and disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the defendants from the Company and attorneys’ fees, all in unspecified amounts, Steinberg v. McKesson Corporation, et.al., No. 2017-0736. Three similar suits were thereafter filed by purported shareholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, including Police & Fire Ret. Sys. of the City of Detroit v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. 2017-0803, Amalgamated Bank v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. 2017-0881, and Greene v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. 2018-0042. The court ordered that all four actions be consolidated, and the plaintiffs designated the complaint in the Steinberg action as the operative complaint. The consolidated matter is captioned In re McKesson Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 2017-0736. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January 18, 2018. On May 25, 2018, the court stayed further proceedings in this matter in favor of the In re McKesson Corporation Derivative Litigation action referenced above. On August 8, 2018, the Company was served with a qui tam complaint pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that the Company violated the False Claims Act and various state false claims acts due to the alleged failure of the Company and other defendants to report providers who were engaged in diversion. United States ex rel. Manchester v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al., Case No. 1-16-cv-10947. On August 22, 2018, the United States filed a motion to dismiss. The relator recently died, and on February 25, 2019 the court entered an order staying the matter until a proper party can be substituted, and providing that if no party is substituted within 90 days of February 25, 2019, the case will be dismissed. On April 3, 2019, the widow of the relator filed a motion to substitute their daughter as the relator; on April 12, 2019, the United States filed its opposition to this substitution request. 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., CV-13-02219 (HG). 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 the Company violated the TCPA because it sent 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 and on August 22, 2016, the court denied this motion, based, in part, on the grounds that identifying solicited faxes would require individualized inquiries as to consent. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In March 2017, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held, in an unrelated matter, that the FCC’s rule requiring opt-out notices does not apply to solicited fax advertisements (i.e. those sent with consent.) On July 27, 2018, the Ninth Circuit 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. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification on December 4, 2018. On January 25, 2019, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, asking the court to review the ruling by the Ninth Circuit. On April 17, 2019, the court denied the Company’s motion to stay the action pending the decision by the Supreme Court on the Company’s petition for writ of certiorari. On December 29, 2017, two investment funds holding shares in Celesio AG filed a complaint against McKesson Europe Holdings (formerly known as “Dragonfly GmbH & Co KGaA”), a subsidiary of the Company, in a German court in Stuttgart, Germany, Polygon European Equity Opportunity Master Fund et al. v. McKesson Europe Holdings GmbH & Co. KGaA, No. 18 O 455/17. The complaint alleges that the public tender offer document published by McKesson Europe in its acquisition of Celesio AG incorrectly stated that McKesson Europe’s acquisition of convertible bonds would not be treated as a relevant acquisition of shares for the purposes of triggering minimum pricing considerations under Section 4 of the German Takeover Offer Ordinance. On May 11, 2018, the court dismissed the claims against McKesson Europe. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling and, on December 19, 2018, the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Stuttgart confirmed the full dismissal of this matter. On March 13, 2019, the Higher Regional Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ application to amend the factual part of the Court’s December 2018 opinion. On February 4, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against denial of leave to appeal with the Federal Supreme Civil Court (Bundesgerichtshof). On December 30, 2017, four additional investment funds, which allegedly entered into swap transactions regarding shares in Celesio AG that would have enabled them to decide whether to accept the takeover offer described above, filed a claim, Davidson Kempner International (BVI) Ltd. et al. v. McKesson Europe Holdings GmbH & Co. KGaA, No.16 O 475/17, that is similar to the Polygon matter. On March 15, 2019, the lower court dismissed the case; plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Stuttgart on April 15, 2019. On March 5, 2018, the Company’s subsidiary, RxC Acquisition Company (d/b/a RxCrossroads), was served with a qui tam complaint filed in July 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois by a relator against RxC Acquisition Company, among others, alleging that UCB, Inc., provided illegal “kickbacks” to providers, including nurse educator services and reimbursement assistance services provided through RxC Acquisition Company, in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, and various state false claims statutes. United States ex rel. CIMZNHCA, LLC v. UCB, Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-00765. The complaint seeks treble damages, civil penalties, and further relief, all in unspecified amounts. The United States and the states named in the complaint have declined to intervene in the suit. On December 17, 2018, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety; this motion was denied on April 15, 2019. On April 29, 2019, the Department of Justice filed a motion for reconsideration of this denial. The court has set a trial date of April 5, 2021. On April 16, 2013, the Company’s subsidiary, U.S. Oncology, Inc. (“USON”), was served with a third amended qui tam complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by two relators, purportedly on behalf of the United States, 21 states and the District of Columbia, against USON and five other defendants, alleging that USON solicited and received illegal “kickbacks” from Amgen in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, the 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. Piacentile v. Amgen Inc., et al., CV 04-3983 (SJ). Previously, the United States declined to intervene in the case as to all allegations and defendants except for Amgen. On September 30, 2013, the court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss the claims pled against Amgen. On September 17, 2018, the court granted USON’s motion to dismiss the claims pled against it, with leave to amend. On November 16, 2018, the relators filed a fourth amended complaint. On March 29, 2019, USON filed a motion to dismiss that amended complaint. 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 against USOS, among others, alleging that USOS solicited and received illegal “kickbacks” from Amgen in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, the 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). These claims are based on the same grounds as the Piacentile action referenced above. Previously, the United States 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 and gave the relator leave to file another action after the Piacentile action is no longer pending. The relator appealed this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on December 11, 2018 the defendants moved to dismiss the appeal. On November 27, 2018, the Company’s subsidiary, RxC Acquisition Company (d/b/a RxCrossroads) was served with a qui tam complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that EMD Serono, Inc. and Pfizer, Inc. provided illegal “kickbacks” to providers, including services provided through RxC Acquisition Company and others, in violation of the Anti-Kickback statute, the False Claims Act, and various state false claims statutes. United States ex rel. Harris et al. v. EMD Serono, Inc. et al., No. 16-5594. The United States and the named states declined to intervene in the case. On December 17, 2018, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On December 28, 2018, relators filed a second amended complaint, and on January 7, 2019, relators and defendants jointly moved for a stay of the defendants’ response deadline until after the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss has been resolved. On April 3, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss. On January 24, 2019, the Company was served with a qui tam complaint that had previously been unsealed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that the Company and its subsidiary, U.S. Oncology, Inc., among others, received payments for unnecessary medical services in violation of the False Claims Act and the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act. United States ex rel. Nguyen v. McKesson Corp., et al., No. 4:15-00814. Previously, the United States and Texas declined to intervene in the case. On March 19, 2019, the court granted relator’s motion to stay proceedings for ninety days. On April 3, 2018, a second amended qui tam complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by a relator, purportedly on behalf of the United States, 30 states, the District of Columbia, and two cities against McKesson Corporation, McKesson Specialty Care Distribution Corporation, McKesson Specialty Distribution LLC, McKesson Specialty Care Distribution Joint Venture, L.P., Oncology Therapeutics Network Corporation, Oncology Therapeutics Network Joint Venture, L.P., US Oncology, Inc. and US Oncology Specialty, L.P., alleging that from 2001 through 2010 the defendants repackaged and sold single-dose syringes of oncology medications in a manner that violated the federal False Claims Act and various state and local false claims statutes, and seeking damages, treble damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, United States ex rel. Omni Healthcare Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, et al. , 12-CV-06440 (NG). The United States and the named states have declined to intervene in the case. On October 15, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as to all named defendants. On February 3, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, leaving the Company and Oncology Therapeutics Network Corporation as the only remaining defendants in the case. On February 19, 2019, the relator filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s dismissal of Oncology Therapeutics Network Joint Venture. The Company is a defendant in an amended complaint filed on June 15, 2018 in a case pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois alleging that the Company’s subsidiary, McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc., among others, violated the Sherman Act by restraining trade in the sale of safety and conventional syringes and safety IV catheters. Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC v. Becton, Dickinson, et al., No. 18:1059. The action is filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers, and seeks treble damages and further relief, all in unspecified amounts. On July 20, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On November 30, 2018, the district court granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On December 27, 2018, plaintiffs appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On September 25, 2018, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Company and its subsidiary, McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc., among others, violated the Sherman Act by restraining trade in the sale of generic drugs. Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. 2:18-cv-4137. A motion to dismiss was filed on February 21, 2019 and the plaintiffs have agreed to a discovery stay until the motion is resolved. On December 12, 2018, the Company was served with a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that McKesson and two of its officers, CEO John Hammergren and former CFO James Beer, violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by reporting profits and revenues from 2013 until early 2017 that were false and misleading, due to an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of generic drugs. Evanston Police Pension Fund v. McKesson Corporation, No. 3:18-06525. On February 8, 2019, the court appointed the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as the lead plaintiff. On April 10, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that added insider trading allegations against defendant Hammergren. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (“A&P”), a former customer of the Company, filed Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in July 2015. In re The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-23007. The Company has been sued in a lawsuit in this bankruptcy case which seeks to recover approximately $68 million in allegedly preferential transfers. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors on behalf of the bankruptcy estate of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corporation d/b/a McKesson Drug Co., Adv. Proc. No. 17-08264. 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 also 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. As an example of the type of subpoenas or requests the Company receives from time to time, in August 2015, the Company was served with a Civil Investigative Demand by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York relating to certain business analytics tools offered to its customers. In May 2017 and August 2018, respectively, the Company was served with two separate Civil Investigative Demands by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York relating to the certification the Company obtained for two software products under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Electronic Health Record Incentive Program. In September 2017, the Company received a request for information and documents from a group of approximately 40 state attorneys general related to an investigation into the factors contributing to the increasing number of opioid-related hospitalizations and deaths in the United States. The Company has also received civil investigative demands, subpoenas or requests for information from several other state attorneys general on the same issues. In January 2019, the Company was served with a subpoena by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, related to the Company’s participation in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. The Company is currently responding to these requests. In 2015, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $150 million relating to the Company’s previously disclosed agreement with the DEA and the Department of Justice and various United States Attorneys’ offices to settle all potential administrative and civil claims relating to investigations about the Company’s suspicious order reporting practices for controlled substances. In January 2017, the Company finalized the settlements and paid $150 million in cash. New York Opioid Statute Legislative, regulatory or industry measures to address the misuse of prescription opioid medications could affect the Company’s business in ways that we 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 December 19, 2018, the United States 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. On January 17, 2019, the State filed a notice of appeal. The State of New York has subsequently adopted a tax on sales of opioids in the State. The excise tax would apply only to the first sale occurring in New York, and thus may not apply to sales from the Company’s distribution centers in New York to pharmacy customers. In addition, other states are considering legislation that could require us to pay taxes, licensing fees, or assessments on the distribution of opioid medications in those states. These proposed bills vary in the amounts and the means of calculation. Liabilities for taxes or assessments under any such laws will likely have an adverse impact on our results of operations, unless we are able to mitigate them through operational changes or commercial arrangements where permitted. IV. Environmental Matters Primarily as a result of the operation of the Company’s former chemical businesses, which were fully divested by 1987, the Company is involved in various matters pursuant to environmental laws and regulations. The Company has received claims and demands from governmental agencies relating to investigative and remedial actions purportedly required to address environmental conditions alleged to exist at five sites where it, or entities acquired by it, formerly conducted operations and the Company, by administrative order or otherwise, has agreed to take certain actions at those sites, including soil and groundwater remediation. Based on a determination by the Company’s environmental staff, in consultation with outside environmental specialists and counsel, the current estimate of the Company’s probable loss associated with the remediation costs for these five sites is $10 million, net of amounts anticipated from third parties. The $10 million is expected to be paid out between April 2019 and March 2049. The Company’s estimated probable loss for these environmental matters has been entirely accrued for in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. In addition, the Company has been designated as a Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”) under the Superfund law for environmental assessment and cleanup costs as the result of its alleged disposal of hazardous substances at 14 sites. With respect to these sites, numerous other PRPs have similarly been designated and while the current state of the law potentially imposes joint and several liabilities upon PRPs, as a practical matter, costs of these sites are typically shared with other PRPs. At one of these sites, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has selected a preferred remedy with an estimated cost of approximately $1.38 billion. It is not certain at this point in time what proportion of this estimated liability will be borne by the Company or by the numerous other PRPs. Accordingly, the Company’s estimated probable loss at those 14 sites is approximately $23.1 million, which has been entirely accrued for in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. However, it is possible that the ultimate costs of these matters may exceed or be less than the reserves. V. Value Added Tax Assessments We operate in various countries outside the United States which collect value added taxes (“VAT”). The determination of the manner in which a VAT applies to our foreign operations is subject to varying interpretations arising from the complex nature of the tax laws. We have received assessments for VAT which are in various stages of appeal. We disagree with these assessments and believe that we have strong legal arguments to defend our tax positions. Certain VAT assessments relate to years covered by an indemnification agreement. Due to the complex nature of the tax laws, it is not possible to estimate the outcome of these matters. However, based on currently available information, we believe the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, cash flows or results of operations. VI. Other Matters The Company is involved in various other litigation, governmental proceedings and claims, not described above, that arise in the normal course of business. While it is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome or the duration of such litigation, governmental proceedings or claims, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and the advice of counsel, that such litigation, proceedings and claims will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

In addition to commitments and obligations incurred in our business, we are subject to a variety of claims incidental to the normal conduct of our business, including claims from customers and vendors, pending and potential legal actions for damages, governmental investigations, and other matters. The Company is vigorously defending itself against claims in the legal proceedings described below. If we are unsuccessful in defending, or if we determine to settle, any of these matters, we may be required to pay substantial sums, be subject to injunction or be forced to change how we operate our business, which could have a material adverse impact on our financial position or results of operations.

Unless otherwise stated, we are unable to reasonably estimate the loss or a range of possible loss for the matters described below. Often, it is not reasonably possible for us 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 below 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. We review loss contingencies at least quarterly, to determine whether the loss probability has changed and whether we can make a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. When we determine that a loss from a claim is probable and reasonably estimable, we record a liability in the amount of our estimate for the ultimate loss. We also provide 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 our recorded liability.

I. Litigation and Claims Involving Distribution of Controlled Substances

The Company is a defendant in many cases asserting claims related to distribution of controlled substances to pharmacies. We often 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 United States, and in Puerto Rico and Canada. They contain a variety of causes of action, including negligence, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, as well as alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 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 proceeding 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-28-04. At present, there are approximately 1,700 cases under the jurisdiction of the MDL court. On December 19, 2018, the court dismissed the City of Akron’s public nuisance claim and denied dismissal of all other claims challenged in defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court has set a trial date of October 21, 2019 for the claims brought by Cuyahoga County, Ohio and Summit County, Ohio.

The Company is also named in more than 240 similar state court cases in 37 states plus Puerto Rico. These include actions filed by sixteen 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. Some of the state courts have ruled on defendants’ motions to dismiss. In the Connecticut coordinated actions, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on January 8, 2019 and dismissed all claims filed by 21 municipalities; plaintiffs appealed this decision on January 22, 2019. In the New York coordinated actions, the court denied the distributors’ motion to dismiss on July 17, 2018; the distributor defendants appealed this decision on August 3, 2018. In the action filed by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the court, on December 12, 2018, dismissed plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim and declined to dismiss the remaining claims; the distributor defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on December 27, 2018. On December 29, 2018, the court denied the distributors’ motion to dismiss in a case filed by eight West Virginia counties in Marshall County, West Virginia. On March 8, 2019, the distributors filed a petition for writ of prohibition seeking discretionary review of this denial by the West Virginia Supreme Court. In the case file by the Delaware Attorney General, on February 4, 2019, the court dismissed all the causes of action except the claims for negligence and consumer fraud. On February 27, 2019, the court in the action brought by Clark County, Nevada denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss; the defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration of this decision.

In the suit filed against the Company by the Attorney General of West Virginia in January 2016, on May 1, 2019, the parties reached a settlement of all claims in the suit against McKesson. State of West Virginia ex rel. Patrick Morrisey v. McKesson Corp., Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia, Case No. 16-C-1. On May 2, 2019, the court entered an order dismissing the State’s complaint as part of the parties’ settlement. Under the settlement agreement, McKesson paid $14.5 million on May 3, 2019, and will pay five additional installments of $4.5 million over the next five years. The agreement provides that funds from the settlement will be used in support of state initiatives to combat the opioid epidemic. The settlement does not include any admission of liability, and McKesson expressly denies wrongdoing.

On April 3, 2017, Eli Inzlicht, a purported shareholder, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against certain officers and directors of the Company and the Company as a nominal defendant, alleging violations of fiduciary duties relating to the Company’s previously disclosed agreement with the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) and the Department of Justice and various United States Attorneys’ offices to settle all potential administrative and civil claims relating to investigations about the Company’s suspicious order reporting practices for controlled substances, and seeking restitution and disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the defendants from the Company and attorneys’ fees, all in unspecified amounts, Inzlicht v. McKesson Corporation, et.al., No. 5:17-cv-01850. On July 26, 2017, Vladimir Gusinsky, as trustee for the Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust, a purported shareholder, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the same court based on similar allegations, Vladimir Gusinsky, as Trustee for the Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust v. McKesson Corporation, et.al., No. 5:17-cv-4248. On October 9, 2017, the court consolidated the two matters, In re McKesson Corporation Derivative Litigation, No. 4:17-cv-1850. On January 5, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated suit. On May 14, 2018, the court denied in part and granted in part the motions to dismiss. On September 17, 2018, a Special Litigation Committee established by the Board of Directors of the Company moved to stay the entire litigation while the Special Litigation Committee conducts an independent investigation concerning the plaintiffs’ allegations. On November 13, 2018, the court granted the motion to stay as to deposition discovery only.

On October 17, 2017, Chaile Steinberg, a purported shareholder, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain officers and directors of the Company and the Company as a nominal defendant, alleging violations of fiduciary duties relating to the Company’s previously disclosed agreement with the DEA and the Department of Justice and various United States Attorneys’ offices to settle all potential administrative and civil claims relating to investigations about the Company’s suspicious order reporting practices for controlled substances, and seeking damages and disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the defendants from the Company and attorneys’ fees, all in unspecified amounts, Steinberg v. McKesson Corporation, et.al., No. 2017-0736. Three similar suits were thereafter filed by purported shareholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, including Police & Fire Ret. Sys. of the City of Detroit v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. 2017-0803, Amalgamated Bank v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. 2017-0881, and Greene v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. 2018-0042. The court ordered that all four actions be consolidated, and the plaintiffs designated the complaint in the Steinberg action as the operative complaint. The consolidated matter is captioned In re McKesson Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 2017-0736. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January 18, 2018. On May 25, 2018, the court stayed further proceedings in this matter in favor of the In re McKesson Corporation Derivative Litigation action referenced above.

On August 8, 2018, the Company was served with a qui tam complaint pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that the Company violated the False Claims Act and various state false claims acts due to the alleged failure of the Company and other defendants to report providers who were engaged in diversion. United States ex rel. Manchester v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al., Case No. 1-16-cv-10947. On August 22, 2018, the United States filed a motion to dismiss. The relator recently died, and on February 25, 2019 the court entered an order staying the matter until a proper party can be substituted, and providing that if no party is substituted within 90 days of February 25, 2019, the case will be dismissed. On April 3, 2019, the widow of the relator filed a motion to substitute their daughter as the relator; on April 12, 2019, the United States filed its opposition to this substitution request.

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., CV-13-02219 (HG). 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 the Company violated the TCPA because it sent 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 and on August 22, 2016, the court denied this motion, based, in part, on the grounds that identifying solicited faxes would require individualized inquiries as to consent. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In March 2017, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held, in an unrelated matter, that the FCC’s rule requiring opt-out notices does not apply to solicited fax advertisements (i.e. those sent with consent.) On July 27, 2018, the Ninth Circuit 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. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification on December 4, 2018. On January 25, 2019, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, asking the court to review the ruling by the Ninth Circuit. On April 17, 2019, the court denied the Company’s motion to stay the action pending the decision by the Supreme Court on the Company’s petition for writ of certiorari.

On December 29, 2017, two investment funds holding shares in Celesio AG filed a complaint against McKesson Europe Holdings (formerly known as “Dragonfly GmbH & Co KGaA”), a subsidiary of the Company, in a German court in Stuttgart, Germany, Polygon European Equity Opportunity Master Fund et al. v. McKesson Europe Holdings GmbH & Co. KGaA, No. 18 O 455/17. The complaint alleges that the public tender offer document published by McKesson Europe in its acquisition of Celesio AG incorrectly stated that McKesson Europe’s acquisition of convertible bonds would not be treated as a relevant acquisition of shares for the purposes of triggering minimum pricing considerations under Section 4 of the German Takeover Offer Ordinance. On May 11, 2018, the court dismissed the claims against McKesson Europe. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling and, on December 19, 2018, the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Stuttgart confirmed the full dismissal of this matter. On March 13, 2019, the Higher Regional Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ application to amend the factual part of the Court’s December 2018 opinion. On February 4, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against denial of leave to appeal with the Federal Supreme Civil Court (Bundesgerichtshof).

On December 30, 2017, four additional investment funds, which allegedly entered into swap transactions regarding shares in Celesio AG that would have enabled them to decide whether to accept the takeover offer described above, filed a claim, Davidson Kempner International (BVI) Ltd. et al. v. McKesson Europe Holdings GmbH & Co. KGaA, No.16 O 475/17, that is similar to the Polygon matter. On March 15, 2019, the lower court dismissed the case; plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Stuttgart on April 15, 2019.

On March 5, 2018, the Company’s subsidiary, RxC Acquisition Company (d/b/a RxCrossroads), was served with a qui tam complaint filed in July 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois by a relator against RxC Acquisition Company, among others, alleging that UCB, Inc., provided illegal “kickbacks” to providers, including nurse educator services and reimbursement assistance services provided through RxC Acquisition Company, in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, and various state false claims statutes. United States ex rel. CIMZNHCA, LLC v. UCB, Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-00765. The complaint seeks treble damages, civil penalties, and further relief, all in unspecified amounts. The United States and the states named in the complaint have declined to intervene in the suit. On December 17, 2018, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety; this motion was denied on April 15, 2019. On April 29, 2019, the Department of Justice filed a motion for reconsideration of this denial. The court has set a trial date of April 5, 2021.

On April 16, 2013, the Company’s subsidiary, U.S. Oncology, Inc. (“USON”), was served with a third amended qui tam complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by two relators, purportedly on behalf of the United States, 21 states and the District of Columbia, against USON and five other defendants, alleging that USON solicited and received illegal “kickbacks” from Amgen in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, the 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. Piacentile v. Amgen Inc., et al., CV 04-3983 (SJ). Previously, the United States declined to intervene in the case as to all allegations and defendants except for Amgen. On September 30, 2013, the court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss the claims pled against Amgen. On September 17, 2018, the court granted USON’s motion to dismiss the claims pled against it, with leave to amend. On November 16, 2018, the relators filed a fourth amended complaint. On March 29, 2019, USON filed a motion to dismiss that amended complaint.

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 against USOS, among others, alleging that USOS solicited and received illegal “kickbacks” from Amgen in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, the 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). These claims are based on the same grounds as the Piacentile action referenced above. Previously, the United States 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 and gave the relator leave to file another action after the Piacentile action is no longer pending. The relator appealed this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on December 11, 2018 the defendants moved to dismiss the appeal.

On November 27, 2018, the Company’s subsidiary, RxC Acquisition Company (d/b/a RxCrossroads) was served with a qui tam complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that EMD Serono, Inc. and Pfizer, Inc. provided illegal “kickbacks” to providers, including services provided through RxC Acquisition Company and others, in violation of the Anti-Kickback statute, the False Claims Act, and various state false claims statutes. United States ex rel. Harris et al. v. EMD Serono, Inc. et al., No. 16-5594. The United States and the named states declined to intervene in the case. On December 17, 2018, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On December 28, 2018, relators filed a second amended complaint, and on January 7, 2019, relators and defendants jointly moved for a stay of the defendants’ response deadline until after the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss has been resolved. On April 3, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss.

On January 24, 2019, the Company was served with a qui tam complaint that had previously been unsealed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that the Company and its subsidiary, U.S. Oncology, Inc., among others, received payments for unnecessary medical services in violation of the False Claims Act and the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act. United States ex rel. Nguyen v. McKesson Corp., et al., No. 4:15-00814. Previously, the United States and Texas declined to intervene in the case. On March 19, 2019, the court granted relator’s motion to stay proceedings for ninety days.

On April 3, 2018, a second amended qui tam complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by a relator, purportedly on behalf of the United States, 30 states, the District of Columbia, and two cities against McKesson Corporation, McKesson Specialty Care Distribution Corporation, McKesson Specialty Distribution LLC, McKesson Specialty Care Distribution Joint Venture, L.P., Oncology Therapeutics Network Corporation, Oncology Therapeutics Network Joint Venture, L.P., US Oncology, Inc. and US Oncology Specialty, L.P., alleging that from 2001 through 2010 the defendants repackaged and sold single-dose syringes of oncology medications in a manner that violated the federal False Claims Act and various state and local false claims statutes, and seeking damages, treble damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, United States ex rel. Omni Healthcare Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, et al. , 12-CV-06440 (NG). The United States and the named states have declined to intervene in the case. On October 15, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as to all named defendants. On February 3, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, leaving the Company and Oncology Therapeutics Network Corporation as the only remaining defendants in the case. On February 19, 2019, the relator filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s dismissal of Oncology Therapeutics Network Joint Venture.

The Company is a defendant in an amended complaint filed on June 15, 2018 in a case pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois alleging that the Company’s subsidiary, McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc., among others, violated the Sherman Act by restraining trade in the sale of safety and conventional syringes and safety IV catheters. Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC v. Becton, Dickinson, et al., No. 18:1059. The action is filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers, and seeks treble damages and further relief, all in unspecified amounts. On July 20, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On November 30, 2018, the district court granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On December 27, 2018, plaintiffs appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

On September 25, 2018, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Company and its subsidiary, McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc., among others, violated the Sherman Act by restraining trade in the sale of generic drugs. Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. 2:18-cv-4137. A motion to dismiss was filed on February 21, 2019 and the plaintiffs have agreed to a discovery stay until the motion is resolved.

On December 12, 2018, the Company was served with a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that McKesson and two of its officers, CEO John Hammergren and former CFO James Beer, violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by reporting profits and revenues from 2013 until early 2017 that were false and misleading, due to an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of generic drugs. Evanston Police Pension Fund v. McKesson Corporation, No. 3:18-06525. On February 8, 2019, the court appointed the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as the lead plaintiff. On April 10, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that added insider trading allegations against defendant Hammergren.

The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (“A&P”), a former customer of the Company, filed Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in July 2015. In re The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-23007. The Company has been sued in a lawsuit in this bankruptcy case which seeks to recover approximately $68 million in allegedly preferential transfers. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors on behalf of the bankruptcy estate of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corporation d/b/a McKesson Drug Co., Adv. Proc. No. 17-08264.

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 also 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. As an example of the type of subpoenas or requests the Company receives from time to time, in August 2015, the Company was served with a Civil Investigative Demand by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York relating to certain business analytics tools offered to its customers. In May 2017 and August 2018, respectively, the Company was served with two separate Civil Investigative Demands by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York relating to the certification the Company obtained for two software products under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Electronic Health Record Incentive Program. In September 2017, the Company received a request for information and documents from a group of approximately 40 state attorneys general related to an investigation into the factors contributing to the increasing number of opioid-related hospitalizations and deaths in the United States. The Company has also received civil investigative demands, subpoenas or requests for information from several other state attorneys general on the same issues. In January 2019, the Company was served with a subpoena by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, related to the Company’s participation in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. The Company is currently responding to these requests.

In 2015, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $150 million relating to the Company’s previously disclosed agreement with the DEA and the Department of Justice and various United States Attorneys’ offices to settle all potential administrative and civil claims relating to investigations about the Company’s suspicious order reporting practices for controlled substances. In January 2017, the Company finalized the settlements and paid $150 million in cash.

New York Opioid Statute

Legislative, regulatory or industry measures to address the misuse of prescription opioid medications could affect the Company’s business in ways that we 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 December 19, 2018, the United States 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. On January 17, 2019, the State filed a notice of appeal. The State of New York has subsequently adopted a tax on sales of opioids in the State. The excise tax would apply only to the first sale occurring in New York, and thus may not apply to sales from the Company’s distribution centers in New York to pharmacy customers.

In addition, other states are considering legislation that could require us to pay taxes, licensing fees, or assessments on the distribution of opioid medications in those states. These proposed bills vary in the amounts and the means of calculation. Liabilities for taxes or assessments under any such laws will likely have an adverse impact on our results of operations, unless we are able to mitigate them through operational changes or commercial arrangements where permitted.

IV. Environmental Matters

Primarily as a result of the operation of the Company’s former chemical businesses, which were fully divested by 1987, the Company is involved in various matters pursuant to environmental laws and regulations. The Company has received claims and demands from governmental agencies relating to investigative and remedial actions purportedly required to address environmental conditions alleged to exist at five sites where it, or entities acquired by it, formerly conducted operations and the Company, by administrative order or otherwise, has agreed to take certain actions at those sites, including soil and groundwater remediation.

Based on a determination by the Company’s environmental staff, in consultation with outside environmental specialists and counsel, the current estimate of the Company’s probable loss associated with the remediation costs for these five sites is $10 million, net of amounts anticipated from third parties. The $10 million is expected to be paid out between April 2019 and March 2049. The Company’s estimated probable loss for these environmental matters has been entirely accrued for in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

In addition, the Company has been designated as a Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”) under the Superfund law for environmental assessment and cleanup costs as the result of its alleged disposal of hazardous substances at 14 sites. With respect to these sites, numerous other PRPs have similarly been designated and while the current state of the law potentially imposes joint and several liabilities upon PRPs, as a practical matter, costs of these sites are typically shared with other PRPs. At one of these sites, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has selected a preferred remedy with an estimated cost of approximately $1.38 billion. It is not certain at this point in time what proportion of this estimated liability will be borne by the Company or by the numerous other PRPs. Accordingly, the Company’s estimated probable loss at those 14 sites is approximately $23.1 million, which has been entirely accrued for in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. However, it is possible that the ultimate costs of these matters may exceed or be less than the reserves.

V. Value Added Tax Assessments

We operate in various countries outside the United States which collect value added taxes (“VAT”). The determination of the manner in which a VAT applies to our foreign operations is subject to varying interpretations arising from the complex nature of the tax laws. We have received assessments for VAT which are in various stages of appeal. We disagree with these assessments and believe that we have strong legal arguments to defend our tax positions. Certain VAT assessments relate to years covered by an indemnification agreement. Due to the complex nature of the tax laws, it is not possible to estimate the outcome of these matters. However, based on currently available information, we believe the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, cash flows or results of operations.

VI. Other Matters

The Company is involved in various other litigation, governmental proceedings and claims, not described above, that arise in the normal course of business. While it is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome or the duration of such litigation, governmental proceedings or claims, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and the advice of counsel, that such litigation, proceedings and claims will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.