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, stockholder demands, and other disputes, including antitrust, commercial, 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. 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 agreement obligations, consent decrees, and/or other civil and criminal penalties. From time to time, the Company is also involved in disputes with its customers, which the Company generally seeks to resolve through commercial negotiations. If negotiations are unsuccessful, the parties may litigate the dispute or otherwise attempt to settle the matter. 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. 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 numerous states and tribes, have filed lawsuits in various federal, state and other courts against pharmaceutical wholesale distributors (including the Company and certain subsidiaries, such as AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation ("ABDC") and H.D. Smith), pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail pharmacy chains, medical practices, and physicians relating to the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. 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 and continue to be 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. Further, in June 2018, the Court granted a motion permitting the United States, through the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), to participate in settlement discussions and as a friend of the Court by providing information to facilitate non-monetary remedies. In April 2018, the Court issued an order creating a litigation track, which includes dispositive motion practice, discovery, and trials in certain bellwether jurisdictions. In December 2018, the Court issued an order selecting two cases for a second bellwether discovery and trial track. In November 2019 and January 2020, the Court filed Suggestions of Remand with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that identified four cases filed against the Company, including the two cases in the second bellwether trial track, for potential transfer from the MDL back to federal courts in California, Oklahoma, and West Virginia for the completion of discovery, motion practice, and trial. All four cases have now been remanded to those federal district courts. The two consolidated cases in West Virginia commenced trial on May 3, 2021. The Oklahoma case, in which the plaintiff is the Cherokee Nation, is scheduled for trial in September 2022 . On January 26, 2021, the California case was stayed as to the Company and several other defendants. As such, there is no applicable trial date for that case. On July 21, 2021, the Company announced that it and the two other national pharmaceutical distributors have negotiated a comprehensive proposed settlement agreement that, if all conditions are satisfied, would result in the resolution of a substantial majority of opioid lawsuits filed by state and local governmental entities. The proposed settlement agreement and settlement process is subject to conditions and will not become effective unless and until the Company and the two other distributors each make separate independent determinations that (1) following a 30-day sign-on period, a sufficient number of “States” (including the District of Columbia and U.S. territories) have agreed to the proposed settlement agreement (the “Settling States”); and, subsequently, (2) following a 120-day sign-on period, a sufficient number of political subdivisions in the Settling States, including those that have not sued, have agreed to the proposed settlement agreement (or otherwise had their claims foreclosed). If these conditions are satisfied, a final settlement agreement based upon the terms contained in the proposed settlement agreement would become effective sixty (60) days after the distributors determine that there is sufficient participation by political subdivisions in the Settling States. The proposed settlement agreement provides for a settlement of up to approximately $21 billion, of which the Company's portion would be 31.0%. Pursuant to the proposed settlement agreement, the Company would pay up to approximately $6.4 billion over 18 years and comply with other requirements, including establishment of a clearinghouse that will consolidate data from all three national distributors. The exact payment amount will depend on several factors, including the participation rate of states and political subdivisions, the extent to which states take action to foreclose opioid lawsuits by political subdivisions (e.g., laws barring opioid lawsuits by political subdivisions), and the extent to which political subdivisions in Settling States file additional opioid lawsuits against the distributors after a settlement agreement becomes effective. West Virginia subdivisions and Native American tribes are not a part of this settlement process and the Company has been involved in separate negotiations with these groups. The settlement process does not contemplate participation by any non-governmental or non-political entities or individuals. While the proposed settlement agreement remains subject to contingencies that could impact whether the parties ultimately decide to move forward, the Company believes a comprehensive settlement is probable and its loss related thereto can be reasonably estimated. The Company recorded a charge of $6.6 billion in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020 within Employee Severance, Litigation and Other in its Statement of Operations related to the settlement as well as other opioid-related litigation. The Company recorded an additional $124.3 million and $141.4 million accrual in the three and nine months ended June 30, 2021, respectively, in connection with negotiation of the proposed settlement agreement and related obligations and other opioid-related litigation. The Company currently estimates that $477.0 million will be paid prior to June 30, 2022, which is recorded in Accrued Expenses and Other on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet and that $443.0 million of the total $477.0 million short-term liability will be paid into escrow on or prior to September 30, 2021. The escrow payment related to the proposed settlement agreement will be disbursed following the effective date of the settlement, or returned to the Company if the settlement does not become effective. The remaining long-term liability of $6.3 billion is recorded in Accrued Litigation Liability on the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet. While the Company has accrued its estimated liability for this matter, it is unable to estimate the range of possible loss associated with these opioid litigation matters. Because loss contingencies are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable developments or resolutions can occur, the assessment is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. The Company will regularly review these opioid litigation matters to determine whether its accrual is adequate. The amount of ultimate loss may differ materially from the $6.7 billion accrual. Until such time as all of the conditions to finalize the proposed settlement agreement are satisfied or the parties otherwise resolve the lawsuits, the Company will continue to litigate and prepare for trial in the cases pending in the MDL, those remanded from the MDL to federal district courts, as well as in state courts where lawsuits have been filed, and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in all such cases. Since these matters are still developing, the Company is unable to predict the outcome, but the result of these lawsuits could include excessive monetary verdicts and/or injunctive relief that may affect the Company's operations. Further, any final settlement among parties may differ materially from the proposed settlement agreement. Notwithstanding the Company's total liability accrual of $6.7 billion, several cases filed in various state courts have trial dates scheduled in 2021 and later, although all such dates are subject to change. A trial in New York state for cases brought by Nassau and Suffolk Counties and the New York Attorney General against a variety of defendants, including the Company, which is not part of the MDL, commenced on June 28, 2021. On July 20, 2021, the Company and the two other distributors announced that they had reached an agreement to pay up to $1.179 billion in a settlement with the State of New York and participating subdivisions, including Nassau and Suffolk Counties, to resolve opioid-related claims, consistent with New York’s allocations under the proposed settlement agreement, as well as certain attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company's 31.0% share of the $1.179 billion settlement amount is a component of its overall $6.7 billion total liability accrual and a portion will be paid into escrow by September 30, 2021 and disbursed upon satisfaction of certain conditions including entry of a Consent Judgment. This escrow amount is also a component of the aforementioned $443.0 million payment to escrow. Under the settlement, claims in the New York state trial will be dismissed with prejudice as to the Company and the two other distributor defendants. A trial in Washington state court for a case brought by the Washington Attorney General against ABDC and certain other pharmaceutical wholesale distributors is scheduled to begin on September 7, 2021. A trial in Ohio state court for a case brought by the Ohio Attorney General against ABDC and certain other pharmaceutical wholesale distributors is scheduled to begin on September 20, 2021. Aside from those parties that have already filed suit, other entities, including additional attorneys general’s offices, counties, and cities in multiple states, may continue to file additional lawsuits or enforcement proceedings. The Company is vigorously defending itself in the pending lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself against any threatened lawsuits or enforcement proceedings. 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 has engaged in discussions with representatives from these government agencies regarding the requests and has been producing responsive documents. The Company cannot predict how these matters would be affected by a comprehensive nationwide settlement. Since July 2017, the Company has received subpoenas from several U.S. Attorney's Offices, including grand jury subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey ("USAO-NJ") and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York ("USAO-EDNY"). Those subpoenas request the production of a broad range of documents pertaining to the Company's distribution of controlled substances through its various subsidiaries, including ABDC, and its diversion control programs. The Company has been engaged in discussions with the various U.S. Attorney’s Offices, including the Health Care and Government Fraud Unit of the Criminal Division of the USAO-NJ, and has been producing documents in response to the subpoenas. Subpoenas, Ongoing Investigations, and Other Contingencies 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 ("U.S. Bio") received a subpoena for information from the USAO-EDNY relating to its activities in connection with billing for products and making returns of potential overpayments to government payers. A filed qui tam complaint related to the investigation was unsealed in April 2019 and the relator filed an amended complaint under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In December 2019, the government filed a notice that it was declining to intervene. The court ordered that the relator's complaint against the Company, including subsidiaries AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group, LLC and U.S. Bio, be unsealed. The relator’s complaint alleged violations of the federal False Claims Act and the false claims acts of various states. The relator filed a second amended complaint, removing one state false claims act count. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and all briefing on the motion was filed with the court on October 9, 2020 . On October 11, 2019, Teamsters Local 443 Health Services & Insurance Plan, St. Paul Electrical Construction Pension Plan, St. Paul Electrical Construction Workers Supplemental Pension Plan (2014 Restatement), Retirement Medical Funding Plan for the St. Paul Electrical Workers, and San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund filed a complaint for a purported derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors (collectively, "Defendants"). The complaint alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to oversee the compliance by certain of the Company's subsidiaries (including the Company's former subsidiary Medical Initiatives, Inc. ("MII")) with federal regulations, allegedly resulting in the payment of fines and penalties in connection with the settlements with the USAO-EDNY in fiscal 2017 and 2018 that resolved claims arising from MII's pre-filled syringe program. In December 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. After briefing and oral argument, on August 24, 2020 the Delaware Court of Chancery denied Defendants' motion to dismiss. On September 24, 2020, the Board of Directors of the Company established a Special Litigation Committee to conduct an investigation concerning the plaintiffs’ allegations. On October 28, 2020, the Special Litigation Committee filed a motion to stay the litigation pending completion of its investigation. On November 10, 2020, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the Special Litigation Committee’s motion to stay the litigation until May 9, 2021. On May 7, 2021, the Delaware Court of Chancery extended the stay through May 28, 2021. On May 22, 2021, the Special Litigation Committee and Company filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Order Under Delaware Rule of Evidence 510(f) and Permitting Confidential Filing (“Rule 510(f) Motion”). On May 25, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Further Extension of the Stay and Briefing of Rule 510(f) Motion, in which the parties agreed that the Special Litigation Committee’s deadline to file its report would be extended until three business days after the Court rules on the Special Litigation Committee’s and Company’s Rule 510(f) Motion. The Court granted the parties’ stipulation and proposed order on May 26, 2021. The Plaintiffs opposed the Rule 510(f) Motion on May 28, 2021. On June 2, 2021, the Special Litigation Committee and Company filed a reply in support of the Rule 510(f) Motion, which remains pending. On July 17, 2020, CCAR Investments, Inc. filed a complaint for a purported derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors (“CCAR Defendants”). The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and unjust enrichment allegedly arising from the Company’s controlled substance diversion control programs and violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 . On August 14, 2020, the CCAR Defendants answered the complaint and filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On October 29, 2020 the parties filed a stipulation permitting CCAR Investments, Inc. to file an amended complaint on or before November 20, 2020. On December 4, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation staying the deadline for CCAR Investments, Inc. to file an amended complaint pending the Company’s production of certain documents to CCAR Investments, Inc. The Company’s production was completed on January 29, 2021 and the case remains stayed while the plaintiff completes its review. In December 2019, Reliable Pharmacy, together with other retail pharmacies and North Sunflower Medical Center, filed a civil antitrust complaint against multiple generic drug manufacturers, and also included claims against the Company, H.D. Smith, and other drug distributors and industry participants. The case is filed as a putative class action and plaintiffs purport to represent a class of drug purchasers including other retail pharmacies and healthcare providers. The case has been consolidated for multidistrict litigation proceedings before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that the Company and others in the industry participated in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate markets and rig bids regarding generic drugs. In March 2020, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint. On July 15, 2020, the Company and other industry participants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion to dismiss is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a ruling from the court. Antitrust Settlements |