McKesson 2009 Annual Report Download - page 113

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 113 of the 2009 McKesson annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 128

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128

McKESSON CORPORATION
FINANCIAL NOTES (Continued)
107
The Public Payor AWP Cases
Commencing in May of 2008, a series of complaints alleging claims nearly identical to the Private Payor RICO
and Antitrust Actions were filed by various public payors – governmental entities who paid any portion of the price
of certain prescription drugs. These actions were all filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts and were ultimately consolidated under the caption “In re McKesson Governmental Entities Average
Wholesale Price Litigation.” The public payor actions are assigned to the same court assigned to the related claims
of private payors. A description of these actions is as follows:
The San Francisco Action
On May 20, 2008, an action was filed by the San Francisco Health Plan on behalf of itself and a purported class
of political subdivisions in the State of California and by the San Francisco City Attorney on behalf of the “People
of the State of California” in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company
as the sole defendant, alleging violations of civil RICO, the California Cartwright Act, California’s false claims act,
California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 and 17500 and seeking damages, treble damages, civil
penalties, restitution, interest and attorneys’ fees, all in unspecified amounts, San Francisco Health Plan, et al. v.
McKesson Corporation, (Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-10843-PBS) (“San Francisco Action”). On July 3, 2008, an
amended complaint was filed in the San Francisco Action adding a claim for tortious interference. On January 13,
2009, a second amended complaint was filed in the San Francisco Action that abandoned all previously alleged
antitrust claims.
The Connecticut Action
On May 28, 2008, an action was filed by the State of Connecticut in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against the Company, again as the sole defendant, alleging violations of civil RICO, the
Sherman Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and seeking damages, treble damages, restitution,
interest and attorneys’ fees, all in unspecified amounts, State of Connecticut v. McKesson Corporation, (Civil Action
No. 1:08-CV-10900-PBS) (“Connecticut Action”). On January 13, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the
Connecticut Action abandoning all previously alleged antitrust claims.
The Douglas County, Kansas Nationwide Class Action
On August 7, 2008, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by
the Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas on behalf of itself and a purported national class of
state, local and territorial governmental entities against the Company and FDB alleging violations of civil RICO and
federal antitrust laws and seeking damages and treble damages, as well as injunctive relief, interest, attorneys’ fees
and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas v.
McKesson Corporation, et al., (Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-11349-PBS) (“Douglas County, Kansas Action”).
Separate class actions based on essentially the same factual allegations were subsequently filed against the
Company and FDB in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by the City of Panama City,
Florida on August 18, 2008 (“Florida Action”), the State of Oklahoma on October 15, 2008 (“Oklahoma Action”),
the County of Anoka, Minnesota on November 3, 2008 (“Minnesota Action”), Baltimore, Maryland on November 7,
2008 (“Maryland Action”), Columbia, South Carolina on December 12, 2008 (“South Carolina Action”) and
Goldsboro, North Carolina on December 15, 2008 (“North Carolina Action”) in each case on behalf of the filing
entity and a class of state and local governmental entities within the same state, alleging violations of civil RICO,
federal and state antitrust laws and various state consumer protection and deceptive and unfair trade practices
statutes, and seeking damages and treble damages, civil penalties, as well as injunctive relief, interest, attorneys’
fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts.