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 18 to the Company’s 2022 Annual Report, Financial Note 12 to the Company’s 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, and Financial Note 12 to the Company’s 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, which disclosure is incorporated in this footnote by this reference. The Company is vigorously defending itself against those claims and in those proceedings. Significant developments in those matters are described below. If the Company is unsuccessful in defending, or if it determines to settle, any of these matters, it may be required to pay substantial sums, be subject to injunction and/or be forced to change how it operates its business, which could have a material adverse impact on its financial position or results of operations.

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

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

The Company and two other national pharmaceutical distributors (collectively “Distributors”) settled with 46 of 49 eligible states and their participating subdivisions, as well as the District of Columbia and all eligible territories (collectively, “Settling Governmental Entities”) effective on April 2, 2022 (“Settlement”). Under the Settlement, the Distributors will pay the Settling Governmental Entities up to approximately $19.5 billion over 18 years, with up to approximately $7.4 billion to be paid by the Company for its 38.1% portion. A minimum of 85% of the Settlement payments must be used by state and local governmental entities to remediate the opioid epidemic. Most of the remaining percentage relates to plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs, and would be payable over a shorter time period. Under the Settlement, the Distributors will establish a clearinghouse to consolidate their controlled-substance distribution data, which will be available to the settling U.S. states to use as part of their anti-diversion efforts. The Distributors do not admit liability or wrongdoing and do not waive any defenses pursuant to the Settlement. Consent judgments have been entered in all participating states and territories, and approximately 2,300 cases have been dismissed pursuant to the Settlement.

Three eligible states, Alabama, Washington, and Oklahoma did not join the Settlement, but they have all reached agreements with the Company. With respect to the claims of the Alabama attorney general, the Company has an agreement under which the Company will pay $141 million in ten equal annual installments and an additional approximately $33 million in attorney fees and costs to resolve the opioid-related claims of the state of Alabama and its subdivisions. Under an agreement with the attorney general of Washington to settle the claims of the state of Washington and its subdivisions, the Distributors will pay up to $518 million over 18 years, of which the Company’s portion will be 38.1% (or approximately $197 million), consistent with Washington’s allocation under the comprehensive framework, as well as certain additional attorneys’ fees and costs. Under an agreement with the attorney general of Oklahoma to settle claims of the state of Oklahoma and its subdivisions, the Distributors will pay up to approximately $308 million over 18 years, of which the Company’s portion would be 38.1% (or approximately $117 million), consistent with Oklahoma’s allocation under the comprehensive framework.

The Company previously settled with the state of West Virginia, and West Virginia and its subdivisions were not eligible to participate in the comprehensive Settlement. Trial in the case of Cabell County and the City of Huntington occurred in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and concluded on July 28, 2021. On July 4, 2022, the court entered judgment in defendants’ favor. On August 2, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an appeal. The claims of certain other West Virginia subdivisions were pending in the federal Multidistrict Litigation and before the state Mass Litigation Panel. On July 5, 2022, the Mass Litigation Panel entered an order noting an agreement in principle between a group of plaintiffs’ attorneys representing the municipalities and the Distributors. Under the settlement agreement with the participating West Virginia municipalities, the Distributors will pay $400 million over approximately 11 years, with the Company responsible for 38.1% of the total amount (or approximately $152 million). All participating litigating subdivisions have dismissed their claims against the Company. The agreement does not include school districts or the claims of Cabell County and the City of Huntington.

With respect to the claims of Native American tribes, on September 28, 2021, the Company announced that the Distributors reached an agreement with the Cherokee Nation to pay approximately $75 million over 6.5 years to resolve opioid-related claims, of which the Company’s portion will be 38.1% (or approximately $29 million). The Company has also negotiated an agreement to resolve opioid-related claims brought by other Native American tribes. Under that agreement, which was executed on October 26, 2022, the Distributors will pay those other Native American tribes approximately $440 million over 6 years, of which the Company’s portion will be 38.1% (or, approximately $167 million). The agreement achieves broad resolution of opioid-related claims brought against the Distributors by federally recognized Native American tribes. Under these agreements, a minimum of 85% of the settlement payments must be used by the Native American tribes to remediate the opioid epidemic.

Although the Settlement terminated the substantial majority of opioid-related suits by governmental entities pending against the Company, a small number of subdivisions have opted not to participate in the settlements described above. The Company continues to prepare for trial in these pending matters and believes that it has valid defenses to the claims pending against it, and it intends to vigorously defend against all such claims if acceptable settlement terms are not achieved. The Company’s loss contingency accruals for these subdivisions are reflected in the estimated liability for the opioid-related claims consistent with what would be allocated under the framework of the Settlement.

During the three and nine months ended December 31, 2022, the Company paid $106 million and $1.0 billion, respectively, associated with the Settlement and separate settlement agreements of opioid-related claims of participating states, subdivisions, and Native American tribes. In conjunction with the payments made in the nine months ended December 31, 2022, all funds have been released from escrow.

Though the vast majority of opioid claims have been brought by governmental entities in the U.S., the Company is also a defendant in cases brought in the U.S. by private plaintiffs, such as hospitals, health and welfare funds, third-party payors, and individuals, as well as four cases brought in Canada (three by governmental or tribal entities and one by an individual). These claims, and those of private entities generally, are not included in the Settlement or in the charges recorded by the Company, described above. The Company believes it has valid legal defenses in these matters and intends to mount a vigorous defense. One such case was brought by a group of individual plaintiffs in Glynn County, Georgia Superior Court seeking to recover for damages allegedly arising from their family members’ abuse of prescription opioids; trial began on January 30, 2023. Poppell v. Cardinal Health, Inc., CE19-00472. In another, several hospitals brought suit in the Circuit Court of Conecuh County, Alabama; trial on the claims of eight of these hospitals is currently scheduled for July 2023. Fort Payne Hospital Corporation et al. v. McKesson Corp., CV-2021-900016. The Company has not concluded a loss is probable in any of these matters; nor is any possible loss or range of loss reasonably estimable.

Because of the many uncertainties associated with the remaining opioid-related litigation matters, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the upper or lower ends of the range of ultimate possible loss for all opioid-related litigation matters. An adverse judgment or negotiated resolution in any of these matters could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position, cash flows or liquidity, or results of operations.

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.

In April 2018, the State of New York Opioid Stewardship Act (“OSA”) imposed an aggregate $100 million annual surcharge for 2017 and 2018 on all manufacturers and distributors licensed to sell or distribute opioids in New York. Pending resolution of a challenge to the OSA filed by the Healthcare Distribution Alliance (“HDA”), the Company accrued its estimated OSA surcharges as a $50 million provision in “Selling, distribution, general, and administrative expenses” in the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended March 31, 2021 and in “Other accrued liabilities” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2021. In December 2021, after the HDA challenge was dismissed, the Company paid $26 million for the 2017 OSA surcharge assessment. On May 18, 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in New York state court challenging the constitutionality of the OSA. In November 2022, the Company received a 2018 OSA surcharge assessment of approximately $42 million, and therefore the Company accrued an additional $18 million provision in “Selling, distribution, general, and administrative expenses” in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations during the three and nine months ended December 31, 2022. On December 14, 2022, the state court ruled that the OSA is constitutional. In December 2022, the Company paid $11 million as the first installment of the 2018 OSA surcharge assessment. The Company’s OSA challenge is pending before the New York Appellate Division. The Company reserves its rights and intends to vigorously challenge the OSA and the OSA surcharge assessments.

In October 2022, the Company received proceeds of $129 million related to its share of an antitrust settlement. A lawsuit was filed against a brand manufacturer alleging that the manufacturer, by itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to delay or prevent generic drugs from entering the market. The Company was not a named party to the litigation but was a member of the class of those who purchased directly from the pharmaceutical manufacturer. The Company recognized a gain in that amount within "Cost of sales" in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three and nine months ended December 31, 2022 related to the settlement.