McKesson 2009 Annual Report Download - page 114

McKESSON CORPORATION
FINANCIAL NOTES (Continued)
108
On December 24, 2008, an amended and consolidated class action complaint was filed in the Douglas County,
Kansas Action. The amended complaint added the named plaintiffs from the Florida,Oklahoma,Minnesota,
Maryland,South Carolina and North Carolina Actions and abandoned the previously alleged antitrust claims. On
January 9, 2009, the Florida,Oklahoma,Minnesota,Maryland,South Carolina and North Carolina Actions were
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On March 3, 2009, a second amended and consolidated class action
complaint was filed in the Douglas County, Kansas Action, adding the state of Montana as a plaintiff, adding
Montana state law claims and adding a claim for tortious interference.
On February 10, 2009, plaintiffs in the Douglas County, Kansas Action filed a notice of dismissal without
prejudice of defendant FDB. On April 2, 2009, the Company filed Answers to each of the pending complaints in the
San Francisco Action, the Connecticut Action and the County of Douglas, Kansas Action denying the core factual
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. On April 9, 2009, the Company filed a demand for a jury
in each of these actions.
On March 11, 2009, the court set a discovery cut-off in all of the consolidated actions of October 30, 2009, a
class certification hearing in the Douglas County, Kansas and San Francisco Actions of February 10, 2010 and trial
in the Connecticut Action for July 19, 2010. No trial date is set in the San Francisco and Douglas County, Kansas
Actions. The parties are currently engaged in discovery.
The New Jersey United States’ Attorney’s Office AWP Investigation
In June of 2007, the Company was informed that a qui tam action by an unknown relator was previously filed in
the United States District Court in 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. The Company
has not been provided with the original complaint, which was filed in 2005, and does not know the identity of the
original parties to the action. The Company was advised that the United States and the various states are
considering whether to intervene in the suit, but none has done so to date. The suit thus remains under seal and has
not been served on the Company.
In January 2009, the Company was provided with a courtesy copy of a third amended complaint filed in the qui
tam action. This complaint has also not been served on the Company. The third amended complaint alleges
multiple claims against the Company under the federal False Claims Act and the various states’ and District of
Columbia’s false claims statutes. These and additional claims are also alleged against other parties. The claims
arise out of alleged manipulation of AWP by defendants which plaintiffs claim caused them to pay more than they
should have in reimbursement for prescription drugs covered by various government programs that base
reimbursement payments on AWP. The complaint is brought on behalf of the United States, the twelve states
named above, ten additional states (Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia and seeks damages including treble damages
and civil penalties (which the relator claims would be several billion dollars) as provided under the various False
Claims Act statutes, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.