Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	6 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	Commitments and Contingent Liabilities 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 21 to the Company’s 2020 Annual Report and Financial Note 13 to the Company ’s 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, 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. In the suits filed against the Company by Cuyahoga County, Ohio in October 2017 and Summit County, Ohio in December 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle on October 21, 2019 to settle all claims against the Company. County of Cuyahoga v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., Case No. 1:17-op-45004-DAP (N.D. Ohio); County of Summit, Ohio et al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et. al., Case No. 1:18-op-45090-DAP (N.D. Ohio). The Company does not admit liability and expressly denies wrongdoing. As a result, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $82 million related to two Ohio counties within operating expenses for the second quarter of 2020. 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. A trial has been scheduled for January 4, 2021. 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 28, 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 400 similar state court cases pending in 36 states plus Puerto Rico, along with 3 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 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. The Company continues to be involved in discussions with the objective of achieving broad resolution of opioid-related claims brought by governmental entities. For example, in October 2020, a group of state attorneys general proposed a framework for the potential settlement of opioid claims of governmental entities, including political subdivisions, and compensation for the private attorneys representing these governmental entities. Under the framework proposed by the attorneys general, the three largest U.S. pharmaceutical distributors could be expected to pay an aggregate amount of up to $21.0 billion over 18 years, with up to approximately $8.0 billion over 18 years expected from the Company. The proposed framework would also require the three distributors, including the Company, to adopt changes to anti-diversion programs. If the negotiating parties agree on the 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 accepted by the Company and finalized. Under the framework, before the distributors determine whether to enter into any final settlement, they would assess the sufficiency of the scope of settlement, based in part on the number and identities of the states, political subdivisions, and governmental entities that would participate in any such settlement. If states, political subdivisions or other governmental entities did not agree to a settlement under the framework, there would be a corresponding reduction in the amount due from the Company to account for this. Discussions with attorneys general and other parties continue. To be viable, a broad settlement arrangement would require participation of numerous parties and the resolution of many complex issues. Because of the many uncertainties associated with any potential settlement arrangements, 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 September 30, 2020. While the Company continues to be involved in discussions regarding a potential global settlement framework, the Company also continues to prepare for trial in these matters. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims pending against it and intends to vigorously defend against all such claims. Because of the novelty of the claims asserted and the complexity of litigation, the Company has determined that liability is not probable, and is not able to reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss. 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 a qui tam complaint filed by two relators alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act based on alleged predicate violations of the Controlled Substances Act and its implementing regulations, United States ex rel. Kelley, 19-cv-2233. On August 18, 2020, the court entered an order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss and giving the relators permission to file an amended complaint. On September 8, 2020, pursuant to the court’s order, the relators filed a Second Amended Complaint. 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 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 sought treble damages, civil penalties, and further relief. The United States and the states named in the complaint declined to intervene in the suit. On December 17, 2018, the United States filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety; this motion was denied on April 15, 2019. On June 7, 2019, the court denied the United States’ motion for reconsideration. On July 8, 2019, the United States appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit seeking interlocutory review of the denial of its motion for reconsideration of the denial of the motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 3, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois stayed the district court proceedings pending the appeal. On August 17, 2020, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision on the United States’ motion to dismiss and remanded the case with instructions that the district court enter judgment for the defendants on the relator’s claims under the False Claims Act. The relator sought a re-hearing en banc at the Seventh Circuit, which was denied. The relator did not pursue any further appeals and the relator’s False Claims Act case was dismissed, with judgment entered in favor of the defendants on September 30, 2020. 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 March 5, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s order, and ruled that dismissal was appropriate on alternative grounds. The case was remanded to the district court to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 21, 2020. 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. The plaintiff did not file an appeal. 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. 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 as Operating expenses in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of operations and as Other accrued liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2020. 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.

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 21 to the Company’s 2020 Annual Report and Financial Note 13 to the Company ’s 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, 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.

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. In the suits filed against the Company by Cuyahoga County, Ohio in October 2017 and Summit County, Ohio in December 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle on October 21, 2019 to settle all claims against the Company. County of Cuyahoga v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., Case No. 1:17-op-45004-DAP (N.D. Ohio); County of Summit, Ohio et al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et. al., Case No. 1:18-op-45090-DAP (N.D. Ohio). The Company does not admit liability and expressly denies wrongdoing. As a result, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $82 million related to two Ohio counties within operating expenses for the second quarter of 2020.

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. A trial has been scheduled for January 4, 2021. 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 28, 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 400 similar state court cases pending in 36 states plus Puerto Rico, along with 3 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 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.

The Company continues to be involved in discussions with the objective of achieving broad resolution of opioid-related claims brought by governmental entities. For example, in October 2020, a group of state attorneys general proposed a framework for the potential settlement of opioid claims of governmental entities, including political subdivisions, and compensation for the private attorneys representing these governmental entities.

Under the framework proposed by the attorneys general, the three largest U.S. pharmaceutical distributors could be expected to pay an aggregate amount of up to $21.0 billion over 18 years, with up to approximately $8.0 billion over 18 years expected from the Company. The proposed framework would also require the three distributors, including the Company, to adopt changes to anti-diversion programs. If the negotiating parties agree on the 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 accepted by the Company and finalized. Under the framework, before the distributors determine whether to enter into any final settlement, they would assess the sufficiency of the scope of settlement, based in part on the number and identities of the states, political subdivisions, and governmental entities that would participate in any such settlement. If states, political subdivisions or other governmental entities did not agree to a settlement under the framework, there would be a corresponding reduction in the amount due from the Company to account for this.

Discussions with attorneys general and other parties continue. To be viable, a broad settlement arrangement would require participation of numerous parties and the resolution of many complex issues. Because of the many uncertainties associated with any potential settlement arrangements, 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 September 30, 2020.

While the Company continues to be involved in discussions regarding a potential global settlement framework, the Company also continues to prepare for trial in these matters. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims pending against it and intends to vigorously defend against all such claims. Because of the novelty of the claims asserted and the complexity of litigation, the Company has determined that liability is not probable, and is not able to reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss. 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 a qui tam complaint filed by two relators alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act based on alleged predicate violations of the Controlled Substances Act and its implementing regulations, United States ex rel. Kelley, 19-cv-2233. On August 18, 2020, the court entered an order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss and giving the relators permission to file an amended complaint. On September 8, 2020, pursuant to the court’s order, the relators filed a Second Amended Complaint.

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 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 sought treble damages, civil penalties, and further relief. The United States and the states named in the complaint declined to intervene in the suit. On December 17, 2018, the United States filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety; this motion was denied on April 15, 2019. On June 7, 2019, the court denied the United States’ motion for reconsideration. On July 8, 2019, the United States appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit seeking interlocutory review of the denial of its motion for reconsideration of the denial of the motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 3, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois stayed the district court proceedings pending the appeal. On August 17, 2020, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision on the United States’ motion to dismiss and remanded the case with instructions that the district court enter judgment for the defendants on the relator’s claims under the False Claims Act. The relator sought a re-hearing en banc at the Seventh Circuit, which was denied. The relator did not pursue any further appeals and the relator’s False Claims Act case was dismissed, with judgment entered in favor of the defendants on September 30, 2020.

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 March 5, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s order, and ruled that dismissal was appropriate on alternative grounds. The case was remanded to the district court to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 21, 2020.

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. The plaintiff did not file an appeal.

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.

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 as Operating expenses in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of operations and as Other accrued liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2020. 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.