Other Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

In addition to commitments and obligations in the ordinary course of business, we are subject to various claims, other pending and potential legal actions for damages, investigations relating to governmental laws and regulations and other matters arising out of the normal conduct of our business. As described below, many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages and many seek an indeterminate amount of damages.

When a loss is considered probable and reasonably estimable, we record a liability in the amount of our best estimate for the ultimate loss. However, the likelihood of a loss with respect to a particular contingency is often difficult to predict and determining a meaningful estimate of the loss or a range of loss may not be practicable based on the information available and the potential effect of future events and decisions by third parties that will determine the ultimate resolution of the contingency. Moreover, it is not uncommon for such matters to be resolved over many years, during which time relevant developments and new information must be reevaluated at least quarterly to determine both the likelihood of potential loss and whether it is possible to reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. When a loss is probable but a reasonable estimate cannot be made, disclosure of the proceeding is provided.

Disclosure also is provided when it is reasonably possible that a loss will be incurred or when it is reasonably possible that the amount of a loss will exceed the recorded provision. We review all contingencies at least quarterly to determine whether the likelihood of loss has changed and to assess whether a reasonable estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. As discussed above, development of a meaningful estimate of loss or a range of potential loss is complex when the outcome is directly dependent on negotiations with or decisions by third parties, such as regulatory agencies, the court system and other interested parties. Such factors bear directly on whether it is possible to reasonably estimate a range of potential loss and boundaries of high and low estimates.

We are party to the legal proceedings described below. Unless otherwise stated, we are currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the unresolved proceedings described below. Should any one or a combination of more than one of these proceedings be successful, or should we determine to settle any or a combination of these matters, we may be required to pay substantial sums, become subject to the entry of an injunction or be forced to change the manner in which we operate our business, which could have a material adverse impact on our financial position or results of operations.

I. Average Wholesale Price Litigation and Claims

The following matters involve a benchmark referred to as “AWP,” which is utilized by some public and private payers to calculate a portion of the amount that pharmacies and other providers are reimbursed for dispensing certain covered prescription drugs. The plaintiff in each of these cases alleges that in late 2001 the Company and First DataBank, Inc. (“FDB”), a publisher of pharmaceutical pricing information, conspired to improperly raise the published AWP for certain prescription drugs, and that this alleged conduct resulted in higher drug reimbursement payments.

The Mississippi Action

On October 8, 2010, an action was filed in the Mississippi state court of Hinds County by the State of Mississippi against the Company asserting claims under RICO, Mississippi's Medicaid Fraud Control Act, Mississippi's Consumer Protection Act, and for civil conspiracy, tortious interference with contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud, and seeking damages, treble damages, civil penalties, restitution, as well as injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, State of Mississippi v. McKesson Corporation, et al., (251-10-862CIV). On February 22, 2013, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the State of Mississippi. On March 18, 2013, pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing the Mississippi Action with prejudice.

The Alaska Action

On October 12, 2010, an action was filed in Alaska state court by the State of Alaska against the Company and FDB asserting claims under Alaska's unfair and deceptive trade practices statute, and for fraud and civil conspiracy, and seeking damages, treble damages, punitive damages, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, as well as declaratory relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, State of Alaska v. McKesson Corporation, et al., (3AN-10-11348-CI). On March 14, 2013, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the State of Alaska. On March 22, 2013, the court granted the parties' joint motion to dismiss with prejudice the claims asserted against the Company in the Alaska Action.

The Hawaii Action

On November 10, 2010, an action was filed in Hawaii state court by the State of Hawaii against the Company and FDB asserting claims under Hawaii's false claims statute, Hawaii's unfair and deceptive trade practices statute, and for fraud and civil conspiracy, and seeking damages, treble damages, punitive damages, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, as well as interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, State of Hawaii v. McKesson Corporation, et al., (10-1-2411-11-GWBC). On April 12, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the State's complaint. On January 16, 2013, the court entered an order granting the Company's unopposed motion to continue the trial date to February 17, 2014. On May 2, 2013, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the State of Hawaii. Pursuant to the agreement, the parties will file a stipulation dismissing with prejudice the claims asserted against the Company.

The Louisiana Action

On December 20, 2010, an action was filed in Louisiana state court by the State of Louisiana against the Company asserting claims under Louisiana's unfair and deceptive trade practices statute, Louisiana's Medical Assistance Programs Integrity Law, Louisiana's antitrust statute, and for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment, and seeking damages, statutory fines, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, as well as interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, State of Louisiana v. McKesson Corporation, (C597634 Sec. 23). On December 21, 2012, and January 18, 2013, the Company entered into separate agreements in settlement of the Louisiana Action and a claim for attorneys' fees and costs by the State of Louisiana's counsel. On April 19, 2013, the court granted the parties' joint motions seeking dismissal of the Louisiana Action with prejudice and approval of the attorneys' fees and costs settlement.

The Arizona Administrative Proceeding

On November 5, 2010, the Company received a Notice of Proposed Civil Monetary Penalty from the Office of Inspector General for the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (“AHCCCS”) purporting to initiate an administrative claim process against the Company, and seeking civil penalties in the amount of $101 million and an assessment in the amount of $112 million for false claims allegedly submitted to the Arizona Medicaid program (No. 2010-1218). On February 28, 2011, the Company filed a complaint in Arizona Superior Court, County of Maricopa, against AHCCCS and its Director, alleging that the administrative proceeding commenced by AHCCCS violates the Arizona Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clauses of the Arizona Constitution and the United States Constitution, and seeking to enjoin AHCCCS's administrative proceeding, a declaratory judgment that AHCCCS lacks jurisdiction and legal authority to impose penalties or assessments against the Company, as well as costs of suit, McKesson Corporation v. AHCCCS, (No. CV-2011-004446). On April 28, 2011, the court ruled that AHCCCS has no jurisdiction to impose penalties or assessments against the Company and enjoined AHCCCS from prosecuting the penalty proceeding against the Company. On May 31, 2011, the court entered final judgment in favor of the Company.

On June 16, 2011, AHCCCS filed a notice of appeal. On September 6, 2012, the Arizona court of appeals issued an order affirming the trial court's order enjoining AHCCCS from prosecuting the penalty proceeding against the Company. The time for the filing of a petition for review has expired and no such petition was filed.

On November 9, 2012, the Company received a Revised Notice of Proposed Civil Monetary Penalty from the Office of Inspector General for AHCCCS purporting to reinitiate the administrative proceeding against the Company, and seeking civil penalties in the amount of $112 million and an assessment in the amount of $102 million for false claims allegedly submitted to the Arizona Medicaid program. The Company intends to challenge the reinitiated proceeding and proposed penalty and assessment by AHCCCS.

The Virginia Action

On June 8, 2011, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by the Commonwealth of Virginia against the Company and two of its employees asserting claims under RICO, Virginia's false claims statute, Virginia's fraud statute, and for conspiracy to defraud, and seeking damages, treble damages, civil penalties, interest, and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, Commonwealth of Virginia v. McKesson Corporation, et al., (C11-02782-SI). On October 13, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the Commonwealth's complaint. On March 28, 2013, the court granted the two individual defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims asserted against them. Discovery is ongoing, and trial is set for November 18, 2013.

Shareholder Derivative Action

On September 10, 2012, a derivative action was filed in California Superior Court, San Francisco County, by a shareholder purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain past and present officers and directors of the Company, alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties and wasted Company assets by failing to prevent the underlying conduct that resulted in the Company's AWP litigation, and seeking damages, corporate governance and procedural reforms, equitable and injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of profits, as well as attorneys' fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, Daniel Himmel v. John Hammergren et al., (12-524074). On April 12, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The hearing on the Company's motion is set for June 28, 2013.

The Arizona Action

On September 14, 2012, an action was filed in Arizona state court, Maricopa County, by the State of Arizona against the Company asserting claims under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, and seeking injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties, as well as attorneys' fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, State of Arizona ex rel. Thomas Horne v. McKesson Corporation, (2012-013707). On November 7, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The hearing on the Company's motion is set for May 10, 2013.

The Wisconsin Action

On October 2, 2012, an action was filed in Wisconsin state court, Dane County, by the State of Wisconsin against the Company, FDB, the Hearst Corporation, and Hearst Business Media asserting claims under Wisconsin consumer protection and false claims statutes, and for civil conspiracy, and seeking damages, treble damages, civil penalties, forfeitures, injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, State of Wisconsin v. McKesson Corporation, et al., (12CV3948). On April 8, 2013, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the State of Wisconsin. On April 23, 2013, the Court entered an order dismissing with prejudice the claims asserted against the Company in the Wisconsin Action.

The New Jersey Qui Tam AWP Action

In June 2007, the Company was informed that a relator had previously filed a qui tam action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, purportedly on behalf of the United States, twelve states (California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia) and the District of Columbia against the Company and seven other defendants. In January 2009, the Company was provided with a courtesy copy of the relator's third amended complaint, which alleges claims against the Company and seven other defendants under the False Claims Act and various state false claims statutes. The claims arise out of alleged manipulation of AWP by the defendants. This qui tam action was brought on behalf of the United States and various states, and seeks damages, treble damages and civil penalties, as well as attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

On June 11, 2012, pursuant to the Company's previously reported settlement agreement with the United States Department of Justice, the court entered an order which became effective on July 11, 2012, dismissing with prejudice the claims asserted against Company on behalf of the United States to the extent those claims were encompassed by the settlement release in the written settlement agreement between the Company and the United States. On September 17, 2012, the states that participated in the previously reported settlement sponsored by the coalition of Attorneys General and on whose behalf claims were filed against the Company in the New Jersey qui tam action filed a notice dismissing those claims to the extent those claims were encompassed by the settlement release in the parties' agreements.

The Company has a reserve relating to AWP public entity claims, which is reviewed at least quarterly and whenever events or circumstances indicate changes, including consideration of the pace and progress of discussions relating to potentially resolving other public entity claims. Pre-tax charges relating to changes in the Company's AWP litigation reserve, including accrued interest, are recorded in the Distribution Solutions segment. The Company's AWP litigation reserve is included in other current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. In view of the number of outstanding cases and expected future claims, and the uncertainties of the timing and outcome of this type of litigation, it is possible that the ultimate costs of these matters may exceed or be less than the reserve.

The following is the activity related to the AWP litigation reserve for the years ended March 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011:



	Years Ended March 31,
(In millions)	2013			2012			2011
AWP litigation reserve at beginning of period	$	453		$	330		$	143
Charges incurred	72			149			213
Payments made	(483		)	(26		)	(26		)
AWP litigation reserve at end of period	$	42		$	453		$	330

The charges for 2013 primarily related to state Medicaid claims. The charges for 2012 primarily related to the Douglas County, Kansas Action settlement and the state and federal Medicaid claims. The charges for 2011 primarily related to the state and federal Medicaid claims.

II. Other Litigation and Claims

In connection with the Company's execution of an agreement to acquire PSS World Medical, on December 5, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed in Florida state court, Duval County, by an alleged public shareholder of PSS World Medical against PSS World Medical, members of PSS World Medical's board of directors, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co, and the Company, Baltimore County Employees' Retirement System v. Gary A. Corless, et al., (No.16-2012-CA-013015). The suit alleges that PSS World Medical and its board members breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value and by failing to disclose material information in the preliminary proxy statement, and that the Company and others aided and abetted various fiduciary duty breaches in connection with the proposed merger. In addition to monetary damages in an unspecified amount and other remedies, the suit seeks to enjoin consummation of the merger. On February 8, 2013, the parties agreed in principle to settle the action as a non-opt out class action, subject to court approval, with enhanced disclosures, a request for attorneys' fees, and no affect on the consideration to be received by PSS shareholders as a result of the Company's agreement to acquire PSS. The agreement includes an express denial of any liability on the part of the Company. The parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement that will be presented to the court for final approval.

III. Government 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. An example is an investigation by the Regie de l'assurance maladie du Quebec (“RAMQ”), a provincial government agency with administrative authority over the conduct of pharmaceutical businesses in the province of Quebec, Canada. Since 2009, the Company has cooperated with and responded to this investigation which focused on certain discounts and payments offered to pharmacies in Quebec, as well as payments received by the Company from certain manufacturers. In the third quarter of 2013, the Company engaged in settlement discussions to resolve potential legal claims against the Company and its customers and suppliers arising from the investigation. On April 19, 2013, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the RAMQ, to settle all potential claims of the RAMQ arising from the investigation. The agreement provides that the Company will pay $40 million to the RAMQ, and provides for a full release of all potential claims by the RAMQ arising from the investigation. The agreement includes an express denial of any liability on the part of the Company. The Company has fully reserved for the financial effect of this agreement. In addition, in the third quarter 2013, the Company was informed of an investigation by the United States Department of Justice through the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Tennessee. The Company believes that the investigation is focused on distribution procedures with respect to the Vaccine for Children's Program administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In connection with the investigation, the Company has received and has responded to a subpoena seeking information and records from the Company's Specialty Health business.

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 eight 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. In addition, the Company is one of multiple recipients of a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Agency directive and a separate United States Environmental Protection Agency directive relating to potential natural resources damages (“NRD”) associated with one of these eight sites. Although the Company's potential allocation under either directive cannot be determined at this time, it has agreed to participate with a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) group in the funding of an NRD assessment, the costs of which are reflected in the aggregate estimates set forth below.

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 eight sites is $7 million, net of approximately $1 million that third parties have agreed to pay in settlement or is expected, based either on agreements or nonrefundable contributions which are ongoing, to be contributed by third parties. The $7 million is expected to be paid out between April 2013 and March 2033. 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 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 liability 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 $70 million. It is not certain at this point in time what proportion of this estimated liability will be borne by the Company or by the other PRPs. Accordingly, the Company's estimated probable loss at those 14 sites is approximately $19 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. Other Matters

The Company is involved in various other litigation and governmental proceedings, 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 any such litigation or governmental proceedings, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and the advice of counsel, that such litigation and proceedings will not have a material impact on the Company's financial position or results of operations.