WELCOME TO THE MCKESSON SECURITIES LITIGATION WEBSITE

This website has been established to provide general information related to the proposed settlement of the case known as Evanston Police Pension Fund v. McKesson Corporation, et al. (the “Action”), Case No. 3:18-cv-06525-CRB, pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Court"). The capitalized terms used on this website, and not otherwise defined, shall have the same meanings ascribed to them in the Stipulation of Settlement dated November 30, 2022 (the "Stipulation"), which can be found and downloaded by clicking on the Case Documents tab above. Your rights may be affected by the Settlement if, between October 24, 2013 and October 27, 2016, inclusive (the “Class Period”), you purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of McKesson Corporation (“McKesson” or the "Company").

The entities that lead the Action, Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, is referred to as the “Lead Plaintiff.” The entities and individuals, McKesson, John H. Hammergren, and James Beer, that are being sued are collectively referred to as the “Defendants.”

The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Lead Counsel”) represent Class Members. Class Members will not be charged for these lawyers. They will be paid from the Settlement Fund to the extent the Court approves their application for fees and expenses.

WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT?

This Action arises under Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants McKesson, John H. Hammergren, and James Beer made materially false and misleading statements that concealed that McKesson’s financial success resulted in part from an alleged massive price-fixing scheme among the Company’s generic drug manufacturing suppliers.

Lead Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that generic drug price inflation was not the result of legitimate supply disruptions, that the Company’s generic manufacturing suppliers were allegedly part of an overarching generic pharmaceutical price-fixing conspiracy that was the focus of various governmental investigations, and that the Company’s financial results were positively impacted by, and heavily reliant upon, profits derived from the inflated generic drug prices, which caused the price of McKesson common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. On July 29, 2015, McKesson announced that weaker-than-expected generic price inflation had caused a significant year-over-year drop in its operating margin growth, causing McKesson’s stock price to decline 4.2%. On January 22, 2016, McKesson announced weaker-than-expected generic drug pricing trends, causing the Company’s stock price to decline over 10%. Then on October 27, 2016, McKesson announced that its second quarter results were impacted by a “softer pricing environment” and its gross profit margins decreased compared to the same period a year ago. The next day, McKesson’s stock price fell over 22% from the prior day’s close.

On April 9, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed its Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. On June 10, 2019, Defendants moved to dismiss this complaint, which was opposed by Lead Plaintiff. On October 30, 2019, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. Defendants moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration on December 6, 2019, and Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition on December 9, 2019. On December 19, 2019, the Court denied the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, and granted the motion for clarification of its motion to dismiss order with respect to its loss causation finding. Defendants answered the complaint on February 7, 2020.

The parties conducted extensive written and documentary discovery through 2020 and 2021. On November 16, 2020, Lead Plaintiff moved to certify the class. Following full briefing, on April 8, 2021, the Court granted the motion, and also permitted Defendants to move for partial summary judgment as to loss causation for the November 3, 2016 disclosure.

On June 7, 2021, Defendants moved for partial summary judgment. Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition on August 9, 2021, and Defendants filed their reply on September 23, 2021. Lead Plaintiff filed a sur-reply declaration on October 14, 2021. The Court held oral argument on October 21, 2021, and on that date the Court issued an order granting partial summary judgment as to loss causation for the November 3, 2016 disclosure.

On December 29, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and the Court stayed most discovery and vacated the case schedule. On February 14, 2022, Defendants moved to dismiss the entire action, and Defendant Hammergren moved to dismiss the Section 20A claim against him. Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition on March 31, 2022. The motions were set for hearing at the time the agreement-in-principle to resolve the Action was reached.

In the course of the Action, the Settling Parties engaged the services of Greg Danilow, of Phillips ADR, a nationally recognized mediator. The Settling Parties engaged in a mediation session with Mr. Danilow on May 6, 2022. While the Settling Parties did not reach an agreement to settle the Action at the mediation, the Settling Parties continued settlement negotiations with the assistance of Mr. Danilow, who provided the Settling Parties with a Mediator’s Proposal. On September 27, 2022, the Settling Parties each accepted the Mediator’s Proposal to settle the Action.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

Defendants have agreed to cause to be paid One Hundred Forty-One Million Dollars ($141,000,000.00) in cash into escrow for the benefit of the Class. At this time, it is not possible to make any determination as to how much individual Class Members may receive from the Settlement. Lead Plaintiff has proposed a plan for allocating the Net Settlement Fund to those Class Members who timely submit valid Proof of Claim Forms. Distribution to Authorized Claimants will be made according to a Plan of Allocation to be approved by the Court.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Although the information in this website is intended to assist you, it does not replace the information contained in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the “Notice”) and Stipulation, both of which can be found and downloaded by clicking on the Case Documents tab above. We recommend that you read the Notice and other relevant case documents carefully.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES

Final Approval and Approval of Plan of Allocation/Motion for Attorney Fees Hearing set for June 28, 2023 before the Honorable Charles R. Breyer. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.). Motion Hearing set for 7/14/2023 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco - Videoconference Only before Judge Charles R. Breyer. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.

Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb

Court Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel or parties who wish to be identified by the court as making an appearance or will be participating in the argument at the hearing. A list of names and emails must be sent to the CRD at [email protected] no later than July 11, 2023 at 3:00 PM PST.

General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.

Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.