| 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. 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 United States, 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, 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 suits filed against the Company by Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and Summit County, Ohio, the parties finalized a settlement agreement on December 26, 2019. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company did not admit liability and expressly denied wrongdoing, and paid the counties a total of $82 million on January 9, 2020. This charge was recorded in operating expenses for the year ended March 31, 2020 . Three cases involving McKesson that were previously part of the federal MDL were remanded to other federal courts. 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 and a trial date has been scheduled for October 19, 2020. 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 and 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 385 similar state court cases pending in 36 states plus Puerto Rico. These include actions filed by 27 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. 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 indefinitely postponed in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Company has been involved in discussions with the objective of achieving broad resolution of opioid-related claims brought by governmental entities. For example, on October 21, 2019, four state attorneys general announced certain terms of a proposed framework for the potential settlement of those opioid claims which they indicated they would find acceptable. The proposed framework would have expected the three largest U.S. pharmaceutical distributors to pay an aggregate amount of up to $18.0 billion over 18 years , with up to approximately $6.9 billion over 18 years expected from the Company, with any finally-determined amount being subject to adjustment based on various contingencies, including sufficient resolution with States, political subdivisions and other governmental entities nationwide. The proposed framework also would have required the three distributors, including the Company, to adopt changes to anti-diversion programs and to participate in a program involving the distribution of certain medication used to treat opioid use disorder. Discussions with attorneys general and other parties continue. If the negotiating parties are able to agree on potential 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 finalized. Because of the novelty of the claims asserted and the complexity of litigation involving numerous parties across multiple jurisdictions, and the added uncertainty introduced by the economic and other implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Company has determined that liability is not probable, and is not able to reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss. To be viable, a broad settlement arrangement would require participation of numerous parties and the resolution of many complex issues. The scope and terms of any settlement framework, including the financial terms, have not been determined. Because of the many uncertainties associated with any potential settlement arrangements, the significance of unresolved elements of a potential settlement 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 March 31, 2020 . The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims pending against it and intends to vigorously defend against all such claims. 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. The Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers were defendants in a consolidated shareholder derivative action in the Northern District of California captioned In re McKesson Corporation Derivative Litigation , No. 4:17-cv-1850. The consolidated complaint alleged claims of breach of fiduciary duty, waste, and insider trading purportedly on behalf of the Company. The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties by causing, allowing, or otherwise failing to prevent the purported conduct underlying the Company's previously disclosed agreement with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice (DOJ), and various United States Attorneys' offices to settle potential administrative and civil claims relating to investigations about the Company's suspicious order reporting practices for controlled substances. The consolidated complaint sought unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and other equitable relief. The Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers were also defendants in a similar consolidated shareholder derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned In re McKesson Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation , No. 2017-0736. On May 25, 2018, the court stayed further proceedings in this matter in favor of the In re McKesson Corporation Derivative Litigation action. The parties reached an agreement to resolve these shareholder derivative actions. The court in the In re McKesson Corporation Derivative Litigation action issued a final judgment and order approving the settlement on April 22, 2020. Under that agreement: (i) insurance carriers will pay the Company $175 million , less $44 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded by the court to plaintiffs’ counsel; and (ii) the Company will implement certain corporate governance enhancements that will remain in effect for at least four years . On April 24, 2020, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the parties to the In re McKesson Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation action pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery filed a stipulation dismissing that action with prejudice. No cash payment has yet been received by the Company. On August 8, 2018, the Company was served with a qui tam complaint pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that the Company violated the federal False Claims Act and various state false claims acts due to the alleged failure of the Company and other defendants to report providers who were engaged in diversion of controlled substances. United States ex rel. Manchester v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al. , Case No. 1-16-cv-10947. On August 22, 2018, the United States filed a motion to dismiss. The relator died, and on February 25, 2019 the court entered an order staying the matter until a proper party can be substituted, and providing that if no party is substituted within 90 days of February 25, 2019, the case would be dismissed. In April 2019, the widow of the relator filed a motion to substitute their daughter as the relator; the United States and defendants opposed this substitution request. The motion remains pending and the case remains stayed. In December 2019, the Company was served with two qui tam complaints filed by the same two relators alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act, the California False Claims Act, and the California Unfair Business Practices statute based on alleged predicate violations of the Controlled Substances Act and its implementing regulations, United States ex rel. Kelley , 19-cv-2233, and State of California ex rel. Kelley , CGC-19-576931. The complaints seek relief including treble damages, civil penalties, attorney fees, and costs in unspecified amounts. 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. The hearing for these motions is scheduled for May 21, 2020. On December 29, 2017, two investment funds holding shares in Celesio AG filed a complaint against McKesson Europe Holdings (formerly known as “Dragonfly GmbH & Co KGaA”), a subsidiary of the Company, in a German court in Stuttgart, Germany, Polygon European Equity Opportunity Master Fund et al. v. McKesson Europe Holdings GmbH & Co. KGaA , No. 18 O 455/17. On December 30, 2017, four investment funds, which had allegedly entered into swap transactions regarding shares in Celesio AG that would have enabled them to decide whether to accept McKesson Europe Holdings’s takeover offer in its acquisition of Celesio AG, filed a complaint, Davidson Kempner International (BVI) Ltd. et al. v. McKesson Europe Holdings GmbH & Co. KGaA , No.16 O 475/17. The complaints allege that the public tender offer document published by McKesson Europe in its acquisition of Celesio AG incorrectly stated that McKesson Europe’s acquisition of convertible bonds would not be treated as a relevant acquisition of shares for the purposes of triggering minimum pricing considerations under Section 4 of the German Takeover Offer Ordinance. On May 11, 2018, the court in Polygon dismissed the claims against McKesson Europe. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling and, on December 19, 2018, the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Stuttgart confirmed the full dismissal of the Polygon matter. On February 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed a complaint against denial of leave to appeal with the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof). On March 15, 2019, the lower court in Davidson similarly dismissed the case. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling and, on October 9, 2019, the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Stuttgart confirmed the full dismissal of the Davidson matter. On November 13, 2019, plaintiffs filed a complaint against denial of leave to appeal with the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof). 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 seeks treble damages, civil penalties, and further relief. The United States and the states named in the complaint have 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. The court set a trial date of April 5, 2021. On April 16, 2013, the Company’s subsidiary, U.S. Oncology, Inc. (“USON”), was served with a third amended qui tam complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by two relators, purportedly on behalf of the United States, 21 states and the District of Columbia, against USON and five other defendants, alleging that USON solicited and received illegal “kickbacks” from Amgen in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, and various state false claims statutes, and seeking damages, treble damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, United States ex rel. Piacentile v. Amgen Inc., et al. , CV 04-3983 (SJ). Previously, the United States declined to intervene in the case as to all allegations and defendants except for Amgen. On September 30, 2013, the court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss the claims pled against Amgen. On September 17, 2018, the court granted USON’s motion to dismiss the claims pled against it, with leave to amend. On November 16, 2018, the relators filed a fourth amended complaint. On June 17, 2014, U.S. Oncology Specialty, LP (“USOS”) was served with a fifth amended qui tam complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by a relator alleging that USOS, among others, solicited and received illegal “kickbacks” from Amgen in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act, and various state false claims statutes, and seeking damages, treble damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, United States ex rel. Hanks v. Amgen, Inc., et al. , CV-08-03096 (SJ). These claims are based on the same grounds as the Piacentile action referenced above. Previously, the United States declined to intervene in the case as to all allegations and defendants except for Amgen. On September 17, 2018, the court granted USOS’s motion to dismiss and gave the relator leave to file another action after the Piacentile action is no longer pending. The relator appealed this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; the parties are awaiting the Court’s decision. On April 3, 2018, a second amended qui tam complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by a relator, purportedly on behalf of the United States, 30 states, the District of Columbia, and two cities against McKesson Corporation, McKesson Specialty Care Distribution Corporation, McKesson Specialty Distribution LLC, McKesson Specialty Care Distribution Joint Venture, L.P., Oncology Therapeutics Network Corporation, Oncology Therapeutics Network Joint Venture, L.P., US Oncology, Inc. and US Oncology Specialty, L.P., alleging that from 2001 through 2010 the defendants repackaged and sold single-dose syringes of oncology medications in a manner that violated the federal False Claims Act and various state and local false claims statutes, and seeking damages, treble damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, United States ex rel. Omni Healthcare Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, et al. , 12-CV-06440 (NG). The United States and the named states have declined to intervene in the case. On October 15, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as to all named defendants. On February 4, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, leaving the Company and Oncology Therapeutics Network Corporation as the only remaining defendants in the case. On December 9, 2019, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered the unsealing of another complaint filed by the same relator, alleging the same misconduct and seeking the same relief with respect to US Oncology, Inc., purportedly on behalf of the same government entities, United States ex rel. Omni Healthcare, Inc. v. US Oncology, Inc. , 19-cv-05125. The United States and the named states declined to intervene in the case. 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. On September 25, 2018, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Company and its subsidiary, McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc., among others, violated the Sherman Act by restraining trade in the sale of generic drugs. Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC v. McKesson Corporation, et al. , No. 2:18-cv-4137. On June 26, 2019, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss and authorized plaintiffs to seek leave to amend the claims against the Company. On March 11, 2020, the Company received a complaint alleging that the Company and other distributors violated the Sherman Act by colluding with manufacturers to restrain trade in the sale of generic drugs. Reliable Pharmacy, et al. v. Actavis Holdco US, et al. , No. 2:19-cv-6044. The complaint seeks relief including treble damages, disgorgement, attorney fees, and costs in unspecified amounts. On the same date, the plaintiffs moved to amend the new complaint. On December 12, 2018, the Company received a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that McKesson and two of its former officers, CEO John Hammergren and CFO James Beer, violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by reporting profits and revenues from 2013 until early 2017 that were false and misleading, due to an alleged undisclosed conspiracy to fix the prices of generic drugs. Evanston Police Pension Fund v. McKesson Corporation , No. 3:18-06525. On February 8, 2019, the court appointed the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as the lead plaintiff. On April 10, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that added insider trading allegations against defendant Hammergren. 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 February 20, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In July 2015, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (“A&P”), a former customer of the Company, filed for reorganization in bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. In re The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., et al. , Case No. 15-23007. A suit filed against the Company in this bankruptcy case seeks to recover approximately $68 million in alleged preferential transfers. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors on behalf of the bankruptcy estate of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corporation d/b/a McKesson Drug Co. , Adv. Proc. No. 17-08264. In October 2019, the Company’s subsidiary RelayHealth Corporation (“RelayHealth”) was served with three purported class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege that RelayHealth violated the Sherman Act by entering into an agreement with co-defendant Surescripts, LLC not to compete in the electronic prescription routing market, and by conspiring with Surescripts, LLC to monopolize that market, Powell Prescription Center, et al. v. Surescripts, LLC, et al. , No. 1:19-cv-06627; Intergrated Pharmaceutical Solutions LLC v. Surescripts, LLC, et al. , 1:19-cv-06778; Falconer Pharmacy, Inc. v. Surescripts LLC, et al. , No. 1:19-cv-07035. In November 2019, three similar complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Kennebunk Village Pharmacy, Inc. v. SureScripts, LLC, et al. , 1:19-cv-7445; Whitman v. SureScripts, LLC et al. , No. 1:19-cv-7448; BBK Global Corp. v. SureScripts, LLC et al. , 1:19-cv-7640. In December 2019, the six actions were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints seek relief including treble damages, attorney fees, and costs. 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. As an example of the type of subpoenas or requests the Company receives from time to time, in August 2015, the Company was served with a Civil Investigative Demand by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York relating to certain business analytics tools offered to its customers. In May 2017 and August 2018, respectively, the Company was served with two separate Civil Investigative Demands by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York relating to the certification the Company obtained for two software products under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Electronic Health Record Incentive Program. In September 2017, the Company received a request for information and documents from a group of approximately 40 state attorneys general related to an investigation into the factors contributing to the increasing number of opioid-related hospitalizations and deaths in the United States. The Company also received civil investigative demands, subpoenas or requests for information from several other state attorneys general on the same issues. In January 2019, the Company was served with a subpoena by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, related to the Company’s participation in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. In April and June 2019, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York served grand jury subpoenas seeking documents related to the Company’s anti-diversion policies and procedures and its distribution of Schedule II controlled substances. The Company believes the subpoenas are part of a broader investigation by that office into pharmaceutical manufacturers’ and distributors’ compliance with the Controlled Substances Act and related statutes. In July 2019, the Drug Enforcement Administration served an administrative inspection warrant on the Company’s distribution center in West Sacramento, California seeking information about the Company’s compliance with the Controlled Substances Act and related statutes. On November 12, 2019, the New York Department of Financial Services sent a Notice of Intent to Commence Enforcement Action to McKesson Corporation and PSS World Medical, Inc. for alleged violations of the New York Insurance Law and/or New York Financial Services Law, and seeking civil monetary penalties, in connection with manufacturing and distributing opioids in New York. In January 2020, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts served a Civil Investigative Demand on the Company seeking documents related to certain discounts and rebates paid to physician practice customers. 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 five 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. 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 five sites is $10 million , net of amounts anticipated from third parties. The $10 million is expected to be paid out between April 2020 and March 2050 . The Company has accrued for the estimated probable loss for these environmental matters. The Company has been designated as a Potentially Responsible Party (“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 liabilities 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 $1.38 billion . It is not certain at this point in time what proportion of this estimated liability will be borne by the Company. Accordingly, the Company’s estimated probable loss at those 14 sites is approximately $22.5 million , which has been accrued for in the consolidated balance sheets. However, it is possible that the ultimate costs of these matters may exceed or be less than the reserves. V. Value Added Tax Assessments The Company operates in various countries outside the United States which collect value added taxes (“VAT”). The determination o |
