McKesson 2015 Annual Report Download - page 117

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 117 of the 2015 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 146

  • 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
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146

McKESSON CORPORATION
FINANCIAL NOTES (Continued)
a range of possible loss. When a loss is probable but a reasonable estimate cannot be made, disclosure of the
proceeding is provided.
Disclosure also is provided when it is reasonably possible that a loss will be incurred or when it is
reasonably possible that the amount of a loss will exceed the recorded provision. We review all contingencies at
least quarterly to determine whether the likelihood of loss has changed and to assess whether a reasonable
estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. As discussed above, development of a meaningful estimate of
loss or a range of potential loss is complex when the outcome is directly dependent on negotiations with or
decisions by third parties, such as regulatory agencies, the court system and other interested parties. Such factors
bear directly on whether it is possible to reasonably estimate a range of potential loss and boundaries of high and
low estimates.
We are party to the legal proceedings described below. Unless otherwise stated, we are currently unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the unresolved proceedings described below. Should any one or
a combination of more than one of these proceedings be successful, or should we determine to settle any or a
combination of these matters, we may be required to pay substantial sums, become subject to the entry of an
injunction or be forced to change the manner in which we operate our business, which could have a material
adverse impact on our financial position or results of operations.
I. Litigation and Claims
On August 29, 2007, PSKW, LLC filed a lawsuit against McKesson Specialty Arizona Inc. in the New York
Supreme Court, New York County, alleging that McKesson Specialty Arizona misappropriated trade secrets and
confidential information in launching its LoyaltyScript®program, PSKW, LLC V. McKesson Specialty Arizona
Inc., Index No. 602921/07. Plaintiff later amended its complaint twice to add additional, but related claims. On
August 31, 2011, McKesson Specialty Arizona moved for summary judgment on all claims. On December 23,
2013, the court dismissed PSKW’s cause of action for misappropriation of ideas. PSKW appealed this decision
and on October 21, 2014, the Appellate Division reversed. On January 30, 2015, the trial court granted
McKesson Specialty Arizona’s motion to strike the jury and later set trial for June 15, 2015.
On April 16, 2013, the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, U.S. Oncology, Inc. (“USON”), was served
with a third amended qui tam complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York by two relators, purportedly on behalf of the United States, twenty-one states and the District of Columbia,
against USON and five other defendants, alleging that USON solicited and received illegal “kickbacks” from
Amgen in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, and various state false claims statutes,
and seeking damages, treble damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts,
United States ex rel. Piacentile v. Amgen Inc., et al., CV 04-3983 (SJ). Previously, the United States declined to
intervene in the case as to all allegations and defendants except for Amgen. On February 5, 2013, the United
States filed a motion to dismiss the claims pled against Amgen. On September 30, 2013, the court granted the
United States’ motion to dismiss. On April 4, 2014, USON filed a motion to dismiss the claims pled against it.
The court has not yet ruled on USON’s motion.
On June 17, 2014, U.S. Oncology Specialty, LP (“USOS”) was served with a fifth amended qui tam
complaint filed in July 2008 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by a relator
against USOS, among others, alleging that USOS solicited and received illegal “kickbacks” from Amgen in
violation of the Anti-Kickbacks Statute, the False Claims Act, and various state false claims statutes, and seeking
damages, treble damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, United
States ex rel. Hanks v. Amgen, Inc., et al., CV-08-03096 (SJ). Previously, the United States declined to intervene
in the case as to all allegations and defendants except for Amgen. On August 1, 2014, USOS filed a motion to
112