Legal Matters and Contingencies | Legal Matters and Contingencies In the ordinary course of its business, the Company becomes involved in lawsuits, administrative proceedings, government subpoenas, government investigations, and other disputes, including antitrust, commercial, environmental, product liability, intellectual property, regulatory, employment discrimination, and other matters. Significant damages or penalties may be sought from the Company in some matters, and some matters may require years for the Company to resolve. The Company records a reserve for these matters when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. With respect to the specific legal proceedings and claims described below, unless otherwise noted, the amount or range of possible losses is not reasonably estimable. There can be no assurance that the settlement, resolution, or other outcome of one or more matters, including the matters set forth below, during any subsequent reporting period will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or cash flows for that period or on the Company's financial condition. For those matters for which the Company has not recognized a liability, the Company cannot predict the outcome of their impact on the Company as uncertainty remains with regard to whether such matters will proceed to trial, whether settlements will be reached, and the amount and terms of any such settlements. Outcomes may include settlements in significant amounts that are not currently estimable, limitations on the Company's conduct, the imposition of corporate integrity obligations, and/or other civil and criminal penalties. Opioid Lawsuits and Investigations A significant number of counties, municipalities, and other governmental entities in a majority of U.S. states and Puerto Rico, as well as several states and tribes, have filed lawsuits in various federal, state and other courts against pharmaceutical wholesale distributors (including the Company and its subsidiary AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation ("ABDC")), pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail chains, medical practices, and physicians relating to the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. Additionally, a significant number of counties and municipalities have also named H.D. Smith, a subsidiary that the Company acquired in January 2018, as a defendant in such lawsuits. Other lawsuits regarding the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications have been filed by: third-party payors and similar entities; hospitals; hospital groups; and individuals, including cases styled as putative class actions. The lawsuits, which have been filed in federal, state, and other courts, generally allege violations of controlled substance laws and various other statutes as well as common law claims, including negligence, public nuisance, and unjust enrichment, and seek equitable relief and monetary damages. An initial group of cases was consolidated for Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") proceedings before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the "Court") in December 2017. Additional cases have been, and will likely continue to be, transferred to the MDL. In April 2018, the Court issued an order creating a litigation track, which includes dispositive motion practice, discovery, and trials in certain bellwether jurisdictions that are scheduled to commence in October 2019. In December 2018, the Court dismissed certain public nuisance claims in the first bellwether cases and allowed the majority of the claims to proceed. On December 31, 2018, the Court issued an order selecting two additional cases for a second bellwether discovery and trial track. The timing of discovery, motion practice, and trials for the second set of bellwether cases has not yet been determined. The Court has continued to oversee court-ordered settlement discussions with attorneys for the plaintiffs and certain states that it instituted at the beginning of the MDL proceedings. Further, in June 2018, the Court granted a motion permitting the United States, through the DOJ, to participate in settlement discussions and as a friend of the Court by providing information to facilitate non-monetary remedies. Aside from those parties that have already filed suit, other entities, including additional attorneys general’s offices, counties, and cities in multiple states, have indicated their intent to sue. The Company is vigorously defending itself in the pending lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself against any threatened lawsuits. The Company is not in a position to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to these matters. In addition, in September 2017, the Company received a request for documents and information on behalf of attorneys general from a coalition of states who are investigating a number of manufacturers and distributors (including ABDC) regarding the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. The Company is engaged in discussions with the representatives of the attorneys general regarding this request and has been producing responsive documents. The Company has also received subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and other requests for information, requesting the production of documents regarding the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications from government agencies in other jurisdictions, including certain states. The Company is engaged in discussions with representatives from these government agencies regarding the requests and has been producing responsive documents. In July 2017, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey ("USAO-NJ") and the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") served an administrative subpoena requesting documents relating to ABDC's diversion control programs from 2013 to the present. The Company is responding to the 2017 subpoena and continues to engage in dialogue with the USAO-NJ. Subsequent to the 2017 subpoena, the Company also received administrative subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's Offices for the Eastern District of New York, the District of Colorado, the Northern District of West Virginia, the Western District of Michigan, the Middle District of Florida, and the Eastern District of California. Those subpoenas are substantively similar to the subpoena received from the USAO-NJ in 2017. The Company has been engaged in discussions with the various U.S. Attorney’s Offices and has been producing documents in response to the subpoenas. Government Enforcement and Related Litigation Matters Various government agencies, including the FDA, the Consumer Protection Branch of the Civil Division of the DOJ, and state boards of pharmacy, regulate the compounding of pharmaceutical products. The Company’s subsidiary, PharMEDium, operates Section 503B outsourcing facilities that must comply with current Good Manufacturing Practice ("cGMP") requirements and are inspected by the FDA periodically to determine compliance. The FDA and the DOJ have broad enforcement powers, including the authority to enjoin PharMEDium's Section 503B outsourcing facilities from distributing pharmaceutical products. The Company continues to be in communication with the FDA and the Consumer Protection Branch of the Civil Division of the DOJ regarding the ongoing compliance efforts of PharMEDium and the entry into a consent decree. A consent decree could result in the disruption or suspension of operations at one or more facilities. Violations of a decree could also result in monetary penalties or further enforcement action. The entry into a consent decree is expected to apply to the PharMEDium facilities in Memphis, Tennessee; Dayton, New Jersey; and Sugar Land, Texas; and to the PharMEDium headquarters in Lake Forest, Illinois. The Company currently expects that any such consent decree would permit commercial operations to continue at the Sugar Land and Dayton compounding facilities and administrative operations to continue at the Lake Forest headquarters, subject to the successful completion of certain third-party audits, and would specify requirements, including the completion of a third-party audit, that must be satisfied prior to the resumption of commercial operations at the Memphis facility. The Company cannot predict when the negotiations with the FDA and DOJ will be completed, but currently believes it is likely that a consent decree will be entered into during the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2019. Additionally, state boards of pharmacy may revoke, limit, or deny approval of licenses required under state law to compound or distribute pharmaceutical products. As a result of reciprocal state actions initiated due to the FDA’s inspectional observations, PharMEDium has suspended shipping of its compounded sterile preparations into several states, either voluntarily, by consent or pursuant to orders of state licensing authorities. Subpoenas and Ongoing Investigations From time to time, the Company receives subpoenas or requests for information from various government agencies relating to the Company's business or to the business of a customer, supplier, or other industry participant. The Company's responses often require time and effort and can result in considerable costs being incurred. Most of these matters are resolved without incident; however, such subpoenas or 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 healthcare industry, as well as to substantial settlements. In January 2017, the Company's subsidiary U.S. Bioservices Corporation received a subpoena for information from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York ("USAO-EDNY") relating to its activities in connection with billing for products and making returns of potential overpayments to government payers. The Company engaged in discussions with the USAO-EDNY and produced documents in response to the subpoena. In April 2019, the government informed the Company that it had filed a notice with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York that it was declining to intervene in a filed qui tam action related to its investigation. To date, the case remains under seal and the Company has not received any communication from counsel for relator(s) regarding whether or not relator(s) will pursue the action independently of the government. In November 2017, the Company’s subsidiary PharMEDium received a grand jury subpoena for documents from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Tennessee ("USAO-WDTN") seeking various documents, including information generally related to the laboratory testing procedures of PharMEDium's products, and more specifically, for PharMEDium products packaged in a certain type of syringe at its Memphis, Tennessee facility. The Company engaged in discussions with the USAO-WDTN and produced documents in response to the subpoena. Other Contingencies New York State ("NYS") enacted the Opioid Stewardship Act ("OSA"), which went into effect on July 1, 2018. The OSA established an annual $100 million Opioid Stewardship Fund (the "Fund") and requires manufacturers, distributors, and importers licensed in NYS to ratably source the Fund. The ratable share of the assessment for each licensee was to be based upon opioids sold or distributed to or within NYS. In the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, the Company accrued $22 million as an estimate of its liability under the OSA for opioids distributed from January 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018 and recognized this reserve in Cost of Goods Sold on its Consolidated Statement of Operations and in Accrued Expenses and Other on its Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2018. In December 2018, the OSA was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and, as a result, the Company reversed the $22.0 million accrual in the quarter ended December 31, 2018. NYS filed an appeal of the court decision on January 17, 2019; however, the Company does not believe a loss contingency is probable. Litigation Settlements Antitrust Settlements Numerous lawsuits have been filed against certain brand pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that the manufacturer, by itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to delay or prevent generic drugs from entering the market. These lawsuits are generally brought as class actions. The Company is not typically named as a plaintiff in these lawsuits, but has been a member of the direct purchasers' class (i.e., those purchasers who purchase directly from these pharmaceutical manufacturers). None of the lawsuits have gone to trial, but some have settled in the past with the Company receiving proceeds from the settlement funds. During the three and six months ended March 31, 2019 , the Company recognized gains of $52.0 million and $139.3 million , respectively, related to these lawsuits. The Company recognized gains of $0.3 million during the three and six months ended March 31, 2018 related to these lawsuits. These gains, which are net of attorney fees and estimated payments due to other parties, were recorded as reductions to cost of goods sold in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Operations. |