146.06 0.00 (0.00%)
After hours: 4:53PM EDT
|Bid||145.34 x 1000|
|Ask||154.00 x 800|
|Day's Range||144.72 - 147.45|
|52 Week Range||106.11 - 153.30|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||1.23|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||47.48|
|Earnings Date||Oct 30, 2019|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||1.64 (1.12%)|
|1y Target Est||154.94|
The Board of Directors of McKesson Corporation today declared a regular dividend of 41 cents per share of common stock. The dividend will be payable on January 2, 2020, to stockholders of record on December 2, 2019.
Boston Scientific (BSX) is making an all-out effort to solidify its core businesses and invest in the new technologies as well as the global markets. This reflects on the sales uptick in Q3.
We are encouraged that three out of Thermo Fisher's (TMO) four business segments have registered strong year-over-year revenue growth in Q3.
Five drug companies announced a $48 billion deal after the close on Monday that aims to settle claims related to the opioid crisis in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas.
Four drug companies announced settlements worth a cumulative $260 million Monday ahead of a landmark trial involving allegations they helped to fuel the nation's crippling opioid crisis.
AmerisourceBergen ,Cardinal Health, McKesson and Teva reached a last-minute settlement in a lawsuit related to the opioid crisis.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- They kicked the can down the road.That’s the best way to describe what happened at the bellwether opioid trial that was set to begin Monday morning in Cleveland. Last week, the two sides — companies being sued for their alleged role in the opioid crisis and lawyers suing them on behalf of states, cities and counties nationwide — tried to fashion a global settlement. As it’s been outlined in the media, that settlement could have seen the defendant companies offer more than $50 billion to the plaintiffs to stop the litigation.That effort ended in failure Friday night. So over the weekend, the parties engaged in a smaller but more manageable task: settling with the two Ohio counties who were the plaintiffs in the upcoming trial. They succeeded at around 1 a.m. on Monday. For the companies — Cardinal Health Inc., McKesson Corp., AmerisourceBergen Corp. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. — the money being handed over to the plaintiffs is pocket change: some $260 million spread over 18 months. But for the two counties, Summit and Cuyahoga, it’s badly needed money that will help them treat and mitigate opioid addiction.Still, with more than 2,000 opioid cases yet to be tried, this settlement only offers a temporary reprieve. A significant portion of those cases are in the courtroom of Judge Dan Aaron Polster of the Northern District of Ohio. Soon enough, he will schedule another bellwether trial, and they’ll start it up all over again.Unless, that is, they manage to put a global settlement in place. There is not much doubt at this point that that’s going to happen. The two sides just couldn’t get there by Monday morning. Which is why they punted.What stands in the way of a global settlement? The states had already accepted the deal offered by the companies. But when they took it to the lawyers for the cities and counties, they got shot down. These smaller entities are deeply suspicious of letting the states take the lead. They don’t want to allow the same thing to happen with opioids that happened with tobacco in the late 1990s: The states took all the settlement money, and most of them put it in their general coffers instead of using it for tobacco control efforts.Outside the courthouse after Polster had announced the settlement, I asked the well-known plaintiffs’ lawyer Joe Rice, who is leading the charge for the cities and counties, for his reaction to the claim that his clients were blocking a global settlement. He was unapologetic. “We did not agree to those terms,” he replied. “If we are the hold-up of that settlement we did a really good thing.” He added that his clients are still talking to the states and the defendants. But, he added, “It’s gotta be fair and it’s gotta be now.”Immediacy – Rice’s “now” – is the second stumbling block. The three distributors, Cardinal, McKesson and AmerisourceBergen, initially offered to pay $18 billion over 18 years as their contribution to a global settlement. But outside the courthouse, several county executives stressed that the opioid crisis was a true national emergency and they couldn’t wait 18 years to get all the money due them.Another reporter asked Rice if the settlement with Summit and Cuyahoga counties was likely to serve as a template for future settlements. That seems pretty unlikely. If every government entity suing over opioids got the kind of money the two Ohio counties are getting, it would come to over $300 billion. Because they were first in line, Summit and Cuyahoga counties got very lucky.There are other reasons both sides need to find a way to settle this litigation. In late August, a judge ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $572 million to Oklahoma for its alleged role in that state’s opioid crisis. (The amount was later reduced by $107 million because the judge made a math error.) J&J is appealing, arguing in part that the state’s novel use of “public nuisance” law to bring the case was a “misapplication” of the law. If the verdict is overturned, it will embolden the defendant companies because many of the opioid lawsuits are built on local public nuisance laws. If the verdict us upheld, however, the $50 billion currently on the table may look like peanuts to the plaintiffs.There is no question that the cities and counties that have sued desperately need money to help end the crisis. There is also no question that the only way they’re going to get that funding is from the big companies they’re suing. The only other potential source, the federal government, hasn’t put up anywhere near the kind of money these damaged and desperate communities require.The companies may not like all of this. They may not think it is fair. They may wish they could hold out and fight in court. But society is demanding that they pay up for their roles in the opioid scourge. And sooner or later, they will.To contact the author of this story: Joe Nocera at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Timothy L. O'Brien at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. His latest project is the Bloomberg-Wondery podcast "The Shrink Next Door."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
AmerisourceBergen (ABC), Cardinal Health (CAH) and McKesson (MCK) announced this morning that they have agreed to a $215 million settlement with two Ohio counties, Cuyahoga and Summit, in the first track of the multi-district opioid litigation. With this settlement agreed upon, the companies and the other parties will now continue the work toward a global resolution. While the companies strongly dispute the allegations made by the two counties, they believe settling the bellwether trial is an important stepping stone to achieving a global resolution and delivering meaningful relief.
AMD and ASML Holding moved higher, big drug distributors pared losses after avoiding an opioid trial, and the Dow Jones today aimed to retake 27,000.
This week we saw the McKesson Corporation (NYSE:MCK) share price climb by 13%. But that doesn't change the fact that...
McKesson (MCK) is at a 52-week high, but can investors hope for more gains in the future? We take a look at the company's fundamentals for clues.
(Bloomberg) -- The three largest U.S. drug distributors and a major generic-drug manufacturer have agreed to pay more than $250 million to settle the first federal trial over the companies’ role in fueling the U.S. opioid epidemic.Drug distributors McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health Inc. and AmerisourceBergen Corp., plus drugmaker Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., entered into the agreement with two Ohio counties just before the start of the trial Monday in Cleveland, according to people familiar with the pact. The people asked not to be identified because the matter is still private.The agreement is likely to help buy more time for a wider industry settlement in other opioid cases. McKesson, Cardinal and AmerisourceBergen, which together control 90% of the U.S. drug-distribution market, have proposed an $18 billion settlement for more than 2,000 other lawsuits filed by states, counties and cities, according to people familiar with those negotiations. No deal has been reached on that offer.The settlement is expected to be announced in court later on Monday, said the people. Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc., the last remaining defendant, hasn’t yet reached a deal so far, said the people. The trial scheduled for Monday is likely to be canceled. A separate trial, involving claims by West Virginia municipalities, is scheduled for next year.Shares of the companies fell before the markets opened in New York. McKesson dropped 2.1%, AmerisourceBergen was down 2.9%, Cardinal lost 2.4% and Teva declined 1.5%.Opioid DefendantsThe people said the settlement deal was reached at midnight after weekend-long talks in Cleveland. Other defendants in the case brought by the Ohio counties had already settled.Last week, drugmaker Johnson & Johnson agreed to settle the Cleveland case for $20.4 million. J&J has separately offered $4 billion to settle all the opioid lawsuits against it.Last month, generic-opioid manufacturer Mallinckrodt Plc settled for $30 million. A unit of Endo International Plc offered to pay $10 million and donate $1 million worth of drugs to avoid the trial, and Allergan Plc agreed to pay $5 million.More than 400,000 Americans have died of opioid overdoses over two decades as U.S. addiction rates surged, and local communities have sued to recover expenses on more drug treatment and police services.Drugmakers and distributors have been accused in thousands of lawsuits of turning a blind eye to red flags about unusually large opioid shipments and employing lax compliance standards to rake in billions in profits. The lawsuits are being overseen by U.S. District Judge Dan Polster in Cleveland.The companies have been in talks with states, cities and counties in hopes of reaching an overarching agreement to resolve all the litigation.The case is In Re National Prescription Opioid Litigation, 17-md-2804, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland).(Updated shares. An earlier version corrected the spelling of AmerisourceBergen in the second paragraph.)To contact the reporters on this story: Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware at email@example.com;Riley Griffin in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: David Glovin at email@example.com, ;Drew Armstrong at firstname.lastname@example.org, Steve StrothFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
McKesson Corporation (NYSE: MCK ), Cardinal Health Inc (NYSE: CAH ), Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (NYSE: TEVA ) and AmerisourceBergen Corp. (NYSE: ABC ) have reached 11th-hour settlements to avert ...
Four key defendants in the opioid litigation reached a last-minute deal to sit out of a key trial scheduled to begin Monday morning, according to The Wall Street Journal, but a hoped-for settlement to resolve the opioid litigation remains elusive.
Shares of McKesson Corp. , Cardinal Health Inc. , AmerisourceBergen Corp. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. all fell in premarket trading Monday, after the drug companies reached a last-minute settlement with two Ohio counties in opioid litigation, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. The report, which cited people familiar with the matter, said the settlements come just in time to avoid a trial. Walgreens Boosts Alliance Inc. , which is also in litigation on its role in the opioid crisis, had not yet reached a deal by Monday morning, the WSJ report said. The settlement still falls short of a more comprehensive deal being negotiated to resolve thousands of opioid lawsuits. Shares of McKesson slid 2.2% ahead of the open, Cardinal Health fell 1.5%, AmerisourceBergen shed 1.8% and Teva dropped 4.0%, while futures for the S&P 500 rose 8 points, or 0.3%. Walgreens's stock slipped 0.6% premarket.
Four major drug companies have reached a deal with a pair of Ohio Counties over allegations they played a major role in fueling the opioid crisis.
A committee guiding OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy has suggested other drugmakers, distributors and pharmacy chains use Purdue’s bankruptcy proceedings to settle more than 2,000 lawsuits seeking to hold the drug industry accountable for the national opioid crisis.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Imagine you’re the chief executive officer of a large pharmaceutical corporation with an important drug that’s under attack. More than 2,500 lawsuits have been filed against your company. The plaintiffs aren’t individuals, though, they’re governments — counties, cities and states. And some of the biggest names in the plaintiffs’ bar have agreed to represent these entities, lawyers like Joe Rice, whose firm was said to have earned $1 billion for helping to bring the tobacco companies to heel in the 1990s.You know you’ve got some incriminating-sounding documents in your corporate files — what company doesn’t? — but you also know that the Food and Drug Administration approved your drug. Patients crushed it and snorted it — something that was never intended. And you’re convinced that the plaintiffs are pushing the envelope with the public nuisance laws they are relying on to bring these cases. Yes, your company will probably lose at trial, but you think you have a good chance to win on appeal.Then you look at the army arrayed against you, and it hits you: You’re never going to be able to litigate your way out of this. It’s not just that there are 2,500 lawsuits or that they are being brought by governments. It is what that represents. Government exists to serve the interests of the people, and the people are saying that your company participated in something that inflicted tremendous damage on the country. Hundreds of thousands of people have died. And your company needs to be punished.At this point, you pick up the phone, call your opponents and say, “How much do we need to pay to settle this?”I am obviously not privy to the thinking of the CEOs of the various companies facing opioid lawsuits. But given the news of the last few days, I imagine that their thought process was not too far from what I just described. On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that three of the distributors being sued — McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health Inc., and AmerisourceBergen Corp. — have offered to pay $18 billion over 18 years to settle their cases. This news leaked less than a week before the start of a big opioid trial in Cleveland, in which the three companies are among the defendants.The next day, Bloomberg News reported that Johnson & Johnson was offering $4 billion to end the litigation, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Inc. was proposing to give away $15 billion worth of generic drugs to be freed of the lawsuits. On Thursday, the New York Times reported that the five companies and the states had agreed on the outlines of a settlement that would cost the companies $50 billion.And of course, Purdue Pharma Inc. had already waved the white flag, with a bankruptcy filing last month intended to end the lawsuits by essentially turning the company’s assets over to a trust that would be controlled by the plaintiffs.It is too early to know whether any of these settlement offers will stick. Although the federal judge presiding over the Cleveland trial, Dan Aaron Polster, has asked the CEOs of the three distributors plus Teva to appear Friday to discuss the settlement talks, I’m told that the trial is still likely to begin on Monday, as scheduled.Any settlement will also need approval from the cities and counties that have filed suits. They are deeply suspicious of any deal the states might cut because they remember the outcome of the tobacco litigation. In 1998, the tobacco companies agreed to pay $246 billion over 25 years to the states, but little of that money trickled down to cities and counties. Indeed, a minuscule amount went to anti-tobacco efforts; most of the money is now used to fill state budget gaps.Still, whether it happens next week or next year, the opioid litigation will almost surely end with the companies being sued spending billions to settle it. The stock market practically demands it: Share prices of all the companies that have made settlement offers in recent days have jumped. And continuing litigation drains and distracts a company.Here’s the problem, though. Whenever plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that companies have done bad things and need to pay up, they justify the demand for money by saying it will be used to solve the problem. But will it? In this case, I have my doubts.In an opioid case in Oklahoma a few months ago, a judge ruled that Johnson & Johnson should pay $572 million (later reduced by $107 million), which he calculated would cover opioid abatement services in Oklahoma for just one year. So point one: Ending the crisis will require more money than even Big Pharma can provide.Second, just throwing money at the problem is not going to solve it. States and cities will most likely take different approaches. Some will be better than others. But there is no clear plan coming from the federal government — or anywhere else — about what steps are needed to end the crisis. Until there is, more money is likely to be wasted than not.Third, chances are good that the settlement money will be used for things that have nothing to do with opioids. Again, tobacco in instructive: Settlement money was supposed to be earmarked for tobacco control programs, but in most states the politicians couldn’t resist grabbing it for other purposes.Earlier this summer, during a court hearing, Judge Polster said that “developing solutions to combat a social crisis such as the opioid epidemic should not be the task of our judicial branch.” It was the job, he said, of the executive and legislative branches.He’s right. But that’s just not the American way. In the U.S., when there is a problem with a product, our first instinct is to sue the corporation that made it. When the litigation is settled, money is transferred from shareholders to plaintiffs (and their lawyers). It may be a satisfying resolution, but it rarely solves the problem. To reference tobacco one more time, two decades after the tobacco settlement, 480,000 Americans still die from smoking each year.I suspect the same will be true of the opioid crisis. The companies will settle, the lawyers will pocket millions and the states will get the rest. And the crisis will continue.I’ve said it before, and I’ll no doubt say it again: There’s got to be a better way.To contact the author of this story: Joe Nocera at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Niemi at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. His latest project is the Bloomberg-Wondery podcast "The Shrink Next Door."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.