McKesson 2011 Annual Report Download - page 99

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 99 of the 2011 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 130

  • 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
  • 129
  • 130

McKESSON CORPORATION
FINANCIAL NOTES (Continued)
93
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.
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 May 20, 2009, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by
Oakland County, Michigan and the City of Sterling Heights, Michigan against the Company as the sole defendant,
alleging violations of RICO, the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, the
California Cartwright Act and common law fraud and seeking damages, treble damages, interest and attorneys' fees,
all in unspecified amounts, Oakland County, Michigan et al. v. McKesson Corporation, (Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-
10843-PBS) (“Michigan Action”). On August 4, 2009, the court granted the Company's motion to stay the Michigan
Action.
On February 19, 2010, discovery closed in the consolidated public payer actions. On April 12, 2010, plaintiffs
in the Douglas County, Kansas Action withdrew their motion to certify an opt-in state Medicaid class. A hearing on
the remaining classes in the Douglas County, Kansas and San Francisco Actions was held on August 31, 2010.
On August 5, 2010, the court set a trial date of January 24, 2011, for the claims asserted by the State of
Oklahoma on behalf of its Medicaid program in the Douglas County, Kansas Action, or, in the alternative, the
claims asserted by the State of Montana on behalf of its Medicaid program in the Douglas County, Kansas Action if
the Oklahoma Medicaid claims were resolved before the final pretrial conference, which the court scheduled for
January 19, 2011. On December 2, 2010, the Company executed a Memorandum of Understanding documenting an
agreement in principle with the States of Oklahoma and Montana to settle and release those States’ share of their
Medicaid claims in the Douglas County, Kansas Action subject to consent from the federal government not to seek
any portion of the settlement recovery. In light of the Memorandum of Understanding, on December 7, 2010, the
Court vacated the previously reported trial date of January 24, 2011. On January 11, 2011, the court entered a
settlement order of dismissal with respect to the Medicaid claims of Oklahoma and Montana, subject to reopening of
those actions if the settlement was not consummated by April 11, 2011. On March 23, 2011, the court granted an
unopposed motion filed by the States of Oklahoma and Montana to extend the date on which their Medicaid claims
would be dismissed.