McKesson 2013 Annual Report Download - page 101

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 101 of the 2013 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

95
McKESSON CORPORATION
FINANCIAL NOTES (Continued)
I. Average Wholesale Price Litigation and Claims
The following matters involve a benchmark referred to as “AWP,” which is utilized by some public and private payers to
calculate a portion of the amount that pharmacies and other providers are reimbursed for dispensing certain covered
prescription drugs. The plaintiff in each of these cases alleges that in late 2001 the Company and First DataBank, Inc.
(“FDB”), a publisher of pharmaceutical pricing information, conspired to improperly raise the published AWP for certain
prescription drugs, and that this alleged conduct resulted in higher drug reimbursement payments.
The Mississippi Action
On October 8, 2010, an action was filed in the Mississippi state court of Hinds County by the State of Mississippi against
the Company asserting claims under RICO, Mississippi's Medicaid Fraud Control Act, Mississippi's Consumer Protection
Act, and for civil conspiracy, tortious interference with contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud, and seeking damages, treble
damages, civil penalties, restitution, as well as injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified
amounts, State of Mississippi v. McKesson Corporation, et al., (251-10-862CIV). On February 22, 2013, the Company
entered into a settlement agreement with the State of Mississippi. On March 18, 2013, pursuant to the settlement agreement,
the parties filed a stipulation dismissing the Mississippi Action with prejudice.
The Alaska Action
On October 12, 2010, an action was filed in Alaska state court by the State of Alaska against the Company and FDB
asserting claims under Alaska's unfair and deceptive trade practices statute, and for fraud and civil conspiracy, and seeking
damages, treble damages, punitive damages, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, as well as declaratory relief, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, State of Alaska v. McKesson Corporation, et al., (3AN-10-11348-
CI). On March 14, 2013, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the State of Alaska. On March 22, 2013, the
court granted the parties' joint motion to dismiss with prejudice the claims asserted against the Company in the Alaska Action.
The Hawaii Action
On November 10, 2010, an action was filed in Hawaii state court by the State of Hawaii against the Company and FDB
asserting claims under Hawaii's false claims statute, Hawaii's unfair and deceptive trade practices statute, and for fraud and
civil conspiracy, and seeking damages, treble damages, punitive damages, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, as well as
interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, State of Hawaii v. McKesson Corporation, et al., (10-1-
2411-11-GWBC). On April 12, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the State's complaint. On January 16,
2013, the court entered an order granting the Company's unopposed motion to continue the trial date to February 17, 2014. On
May 2, 2013, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the State of Hawaii. Pursuant to the agreement, the
parties will file a stipulation dismissing with prejudice the claims asserted against the Company.
The Louisiana Action
On December 20, 2010, an action was filed in Louisiana state court by the State of Louisiana against the Company
asserting claims under Louisiana's unfair and deceptive trade practices statute, Louisiana's Medical Assistance Programs
Integrity Law, Louisiana's antitrust statute, and for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and unjust
enrichment, and seeking damages, statutory fines, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, as well as interest, attorneys' fees
and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, State of Louisiana v. McKesson Corporation, (C597634 Sec. 23). On December
21, 2012, and January 18, 2013, the Company entered into separate agreements in settlement of the Louisiana Action and a
claim for attorneys' fees and costs by the State of Louisiana's counsel. On April 19, 2013, the court granted the parties' joint
motions seeking dismissal of the Louisiana Action with prejudice and approval of the attorneys' fees and costs settlement.