McKesson 2012 Annual Report Download - page 99

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 99 of the 2012 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)
95
The Michigan Action
On June 2, 2011, an action was filed in Michigan state court, County of Ingham, by the State of Michigan
against the Company, FDB, and the Hearst Corporation asserting claims under Michigan’s false claims statute, and
for fraud based on false representation, silent fraud, civil conspiracy to commit fraud, tortious interference with
contract, and unjust enrichment, and seeking damages, treble damages, civil penalties, restitution, disgorgement of
profits, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, Bill Schuette ex rel. State of Michigan v.
McKesson Corporation, et al., (11-629-CZ). On November 29, 2011, the court denied the Company’s motion to
dismiss the State’s complaint. No trial date has been set.
The Virginia Action
On June 8, 2011, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
by the Commonwealth of Virginia against the Company and two of its employees asserting claims under RICO,
Virginia’s false claims statute, Virginia’s fraud statute, and for conspiracy to defraud, and seeking damages, treble
damages, civil penalties, interest, and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, Commonwealth of Virginia v.
McKesson Corporation, et al., (C11-02782-SI). On October 13, 2011, the court denied the Company’s motion to
dismiss the Commonwealth’s complaint. Discovery is ongoing, and trial is set for March 11, 2013.
The Indiana Action
On July 13, 2011, the Company was named as a co-defendant to FDB in an action filed in Indiana state court,
County of Marion, by the State of Indiana asserting claims under Indiana’s false claims statute, Indiana’s Medicaid
fraud statute, Indiana’s theft statute, and for fraud and civil conspiracy, and seeking damages, treble damages, civil
penalties, disgorgement of profits, interest, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, all in
unspecified amounts, State of Indiana v. McKesson Corp. et al., (No. 49D11-1106-PL-021595). On January 20,
2012, the court granted, in part, and denied, in part, the Company’s motion to dismiss the State’s complaint.
Specifically, the court dismissed without prejudice the State’s claims under Indiana’s Medicaid fraud statute and
Indiana’s theft statute, and for fraud. On February 21, 2012, a second amended complaint was filed asserting claims
under Indiana’s false claims statute, and for fraud and civil conspiracy. On March 22, 2012, McKesson moved to
dismiss the fraud claim in the second amended complaint. Discovery is ongoing, and trial is set for April 7, 2014.
The Kentucky Action
On July 15, 2011, the Company was named as a co-defendant to FDB in an action filed in Kentucky state court,
Franklin County, by the Commonwealth of Kentucky asserting claims under Kentucky’s consumer protection
statute, Kentucky’s Medicaid fraud statute, Kentucky’s theft by deception statute, Kentucky’s false advertising
statute, and for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy, and seeking damages, punitive damages,
civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, interest, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, all
in unspecified amounts, Commonwealth of Kentucky v. McKesson Corp. et al., (No. 11-CI-00935). On March 12,
2012, the court held a hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss the Commonwealth’s complaint but the court
has not yet issued a ruling. No trial date has been set.
The Oregon Action
On November 11, 2011, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California by the State of Oregon against the Company as the sole defendant asserting claims under RICO, Oregon’s
RICO statute, and for unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, tortious interference with contract, and fraud, and seeking
damages, treble damages, punitive damages, a constructive trust, as well as interest, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit,
all in unspecified amounts, State of Oregon v. McKesson Corporation, No. C11-05384-SI. The Company filed an
answer to the State’s complaint on January 9, 2012. Discovery is ongoing, and trial is set for July 8, 2013.