Cencora · Risk factors

T1Walgreens and Boots together accounted for approximately 25% of our revenue in fiscal 2025 and, as of September 30, 2025, accounted for approximately 38% of our accounts receivable, net. Evernorth Health Services accounted for approximately 13% of our revenue in fiscal 2025. Our top ten customers, including governmental agencies, represented approximately 66% of revenue in fiscal 2025. We have distributor relationships with GPOs in multiple distribution segments. We may lose a key customer or GPO relationship if any existing contract with such customer or GPO expires without being extended, renewed, renegotiated or replaced or is terminated by the customer or GPO prior to expiration, to the extent such early termination is permitted by the contract.

A number of our contracts with key customers or GPOs are typically subject to expiration each year, and we may lose any of these customers or GPO relationships if we are unable to extend, renew, renegotiate or replace such expired contracts. The loss of any key customer or GPO relationship could adversely affect our revenue, results of operations, and cash flows. Additionally, from time to time, key contracts may be renewed or modified prior to their expiration date in furtherance of our strategic objectives or those of our customers. If those contracts are renewed or modified at less favorable terms, they may also negatively impact our revenue, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

On August 28, 2025, T2Sycamore Partners, a private equity firm, acquired Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (“WBA”). We have a distribution agreement in the U.S. pursuant to which we distribute pharmaceuticals to Walgreens pharmacies as well as a generics purchasing services arrangement under which Walgreens Boots Alliance Development GmbH (“WBAD”) provides a variety of services to us, including negotiating acquisition pricing with generic manufacturers on our behalf. Each of these agreements has a stated term that does not expire until 2029. We also have an international distribution agreement pursuant to which we supply brand-name and generic pharmaceutical products to Boots until 2031. In light of the reorganization of WBA and its subsidiaries into distinct business units by WBA’s new owners, such new owners may seek changes to WBA’s operations or our relationship with WBA that could affect our agreements with Walgreens, WBAD, and/or Boots.

For example, WBA’s new owners may expand or accelerate WBA’s plan disclosed in October 2024 to close approximately 1,200 retail stores in the U.S. over a three-year period. There can be no assurance that potential changes to our relationship with WBA, and/or its business and operations under new ownership, will not have an adverse effect on our contractual arrangements with WBA or our business.

In addition, the processes needed to achieve and maintain the expected cost savings, growth initiatives and efficiencies in sourcing, logistics and distribution associated with our relationship with Walgreens and Boots are complex, costly, and time consuming. Achieving the anticipated benefits from the arrangements on an ongoing basis is subject to a number of significant challenges and uncertainties, including, without limitation: (i) the potential inability to realize and/or delays in realizing potential benefits resulting from participation in our generics purchasing services arrangement with WBAD, including improved generic drug pricing and terms, improved service fees from generic manufacturers, cost savings, innovations, or other benefits due to its potential inability to negotiate successfully with generic manufacturers or otherwise to perform as expected; (ii) potential changes in supplier relationships and terms; (iii) unexpected or unforeseen costs, fees, expenses and charges incurred by us related to the transaction or the overall strategic relationship; (iv) changes in the economic terms under which we distribute pharmaceuticals to Walgreens pharmacies in the U.S. or to pharmacies operated by Boots. in the U.K., including changes necessitated by changing market conditions or other unforeseen developments that may arise during the term of either distribution agreement, to the extent that any such changes are not offset by other financial benefits that we are able to obtain through collaboration in other aspects of our strategic relationship with Walgreens and Boots; and (v) any potential issues that could impede our ability to continue to work collaboratively with Walgreens and Boots in an efficient and effective manner in furtherance of the anticipated strategic and financial benefits of the relationship.

From an operational perspective, we are the primary distributor of pharmaceutical products for Walgreens in the U.S. and Boots in the U.K. If our operations are seriously disrupted for any reason deemed within our control, we may have an obligation to pay or credit Walgreens or Boots for any resulting failure or delay in supplying products. Conversely, if the operations of Walgreens, Boots, or WBAD are seriously disrupted for any reason, whether by a pandemic, natural disaster, labor disruption, regulatory or governmental action, or otherwise, it could adversely affect our business and our sales and profitability. In addition, if the economics of the generics purchasing services arrangement with WBAD decline due to changes in market conditions or other changes impacting the fees and rebates that generic manufacturers make available through the arrangement, our margins and results of operations could also be adversely affected.

Our business may also be adversely affected by any operational, financial, or regulatory difficulties that Walgreens or Boots experience, including any disruptions of certain of their existing distribution facilities or retail pharmacies resulting from ongoing inspections by the DEA and/or other regulatory agencies and possible revocation of the controlled substance registrations for such facilities and pharmacies.

As part of our strategy, we seek to pursue acquisitions of and investments in other businesses. At any particular time, we may be in various stages of assessment, discussion, and negotiation with regard to one or more potential acquisitions or investments, not all of which will be consummated. We make public disclosure of pending and completed acquisitions when appropriate and required by applicable securities laws and regulations. In June 2023, we invested $718.4 million (representing a 34.9% interest) in a joint venture to acquire OneOncology, a network of leading oncology practices, with TPG Inc., a global alternative asset management firm, holding the majority interest in the joint venture. Further, on January 2, 2025, we acquired RCA, a leading management services organization of retina specialists.

Each of OneOncology and RCA may fail to achieve their respective future financial and operating performance and results, and consequently we may fail to achieve the expected benefits of these acquisitions within the expected timeframes or at all. Acquisitions of and investments in other businesses may also have the effect of disrupting relationships with employees, suppliers, and other business partners.

We may find that our ability to integrate or achieve the benefits we anticipate from RCA and other acquisitions is more difficult, time consuming, or costly than expected. Furthermore, acquisitions and investments involve numerous risks and uncertainties and may be of businesses or in regions in which we lack operational or market experience. Acquired companies may have business practices or operational requirements that we are not accustomed to or have unique terms and conditions with their business partners. As a result of the acquisition of RCA, the investment in OneOncology, and our entry into new markets, our results of operations and financial position may be adversely affected by a number of factors, including, without limitation: (i) regulatory or compliance issues, including new or increased focus on billing and coding, patient referrals, health and safety, health data privacy, quality standards, corporate practice of medicine and other forms of ownership regulation; (ii) changes in laws and regulations applicable to the acquired businesses, including with respect to management services organizations (“MSOs”); (iii) the failure of the acquired businesses or investments to achieve the results that we have projected in either the near or long term; (iv) the assumption of unknown liabilities, including litigation risks; (v) the fair value of assets acquired and liabilities assumed not being properly estimated; (vi) the difficulties of imposing adequate financial and operating controls on such businesses and their respective management teams and the potential liabilities that might arise pending the imposition of adequate controls; (vii) the difficulties in the integration of or the introduction to the operations, technologies, compliance requirements (including with respect to regulatory, health and safety, and quality standards), services and products of such businesses, including, in connection with the RCA acquisition, those related to clinical trial sites and their obligations under FDA and other applicable healthcare regulations; (viii) the failure to achieve the strategic objectives of these acquisitions and investments; and (ix) substantial costs and the diversion of management’s time to address the foregoing difficulties.

We regularly evaluate our portfolio to determine whether an asset or business may no longer help us meet our objectives. When we decide to divest assets or a business, we may encounter difficulty finding buyers or alternative exit strategies, which could delay the achievement of our strategic objectives. Further, divestitures may be delayed due to failure to obtain required approvals on a timely basis, if at all, from governmental authorities or third parties. They may also become more difficult to execute due to conditions placed upon any approval that could, among other things, delay or prevent us from completing a transaction, negatively impact the value of a divested business due to the effect on relationships with personnel or customers, or otherwise restrict our ability to realize the expected financial or strategic goals of a transaction.

We may continue to have exposure in a divested business, such as through ongoing financial, ownership or operational obligations or transition services, and, as a result, conditions outside of our control might limit the expected benefits of the divestiture. Following a divestiture, we may be restricted from re-entering applicable markets for a period of time due to non-competition restrictions. The impact of a divestiture on our results of operations could also be less than anticipated.

We conduct operations in over 50 countries and, in fiscal 2025, approximately 9% of our revenue was derived from our international operations, which subjects us to various risks inherent in global operations. In the future, we may conduct business in additional foreign jurisdictions, which may present new or different risks associated with such foreign operations.

At any particular time, our global operations may be affected by local changes in laws, regulations, and political and economic environments, including inflation, recession, currency volatility, and competition, as well as business and operational decisions made by joint venture partners. For example, Turkey remains a “highly inflationary economy,” as defined under GAAP, which impacted our consolidated financial statements. Refer to the Foreign Currency accounting policy in Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for the incremental expenses recorded related to Turkey’s highly inflationary accounting impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Furthermore, geopolitical dynamics caused by changes or uncertainty in U.S. policies or the political, economic, social or other conditions or policies in foreign countries and regions in which we do business may impact or disrupt our business, as well as the operations of our customers, suppliers, service providers, or other third-party business partners. During fiscal 2025, we continued to experience increased costs, including for fuel, and it is possible that we could experience supply disruptions, shortages, or additional costs (including with respect to packaging, materials, and other equipment) resulting from U.S. tariffs or other protective measures. These tariffs and protective measures may include (i) the existing fentanyl tariffs, reciprocal tariffs, or secondary tariffs imposed on Indian or Brazilian-origin goods; (ii) the threatened tariffs on imports of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (as amended); or (iii) additional tariffs imposed by the U.S.

Executive Branch or Congress. We cannot predict how or when these tariffs may be implemented or modified. Moreover, other countries may impose counter-tariffs or measures that could impact our operations and pricing. The current environment relating to tariffs is highly dynamic, and tariff policies may be interrelated with other regulatory and foreign policy initiatives of the Executive Branch and/or Congress.

Significantly higher and sustained rates of inflation, with subsequent increases in operational costs, could have a material adverse effect on our business. The continued threat of terrorism and heightened security and military action in response thereto, or any other current or future acts of terrorism, war or other geopolitical developments (such as rising nationalism, the conflict in Ukraine, and evolving conditions in the Middle East), and other events (such as economic sanctions and trade restrictions) may cause further disruptions to the economies of the U.S. and other countries and create further uncertainties. Any disruption may inhibit our access to, or require us to spend more money to source, certain products that we use in our operations. Any of these factors could adversely affect our business.

We conduct our business in various currencies, including the U.S. Dollar, the U.K. Pound Sterling, the Euro, the Turkish Lira, the Brazilian Real, and the Canadian Dollar. T3Changes in foreign currency exchange rates could reduce our revenues, increase our costs or otherwise adversely affect our financial results reported in U.S. dollars. We may from time to time enter into foreign currency contracts, foreign currency borrowings or other techniques intended to hedge a portion of our foreign currency exchange rate risks. These hedging activities may not completely offset the adverse financial effects of unfavorable movements in foreign currency exchange rates during the time the hedges are in place. Any of these risks might have an adverse impact on our business operations and our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

We have distribution centers and facilities located in the U.S., the U.K., the EU, and throughout the world. Our business exposes us to risks that are inherent in the distribution of pharmaceuticals and the provision of related services, including cold chain storage and shipping. The volume of cold chain storage and shipping has increased, and we expect this trend to continue. Although we seek to maintain adequate insurance coverage, coverage on acceptable terms might be unavailable, might not cover our losses, might be significantly more costly or may require large, self-insured retentions. Additionally, we seek to maintain coverage for risks associated with cybersecurity, but such insurance comes with increasingly high self-insured retentions and, in some cases, policies may not provide adequate coverage for possible losses. Uninsured losses or operational losses that result from large, self-insured retentions under commercial insurance coverage might have an adverse impact on our business.

We are exposed to risks inherent to the healthcare industry, including, without limitation, the distribution, administration, ancillary services, and related consultation services provided to our customers, providers, or manufacturers of pharmaceutical products. We seek indemnification from our third-party business partners, including the vendors of the products that we distribute, and seek to limit liability of our contractual exposure with our third-party business partners, but any indemnification or limitation of liability contained in such contractual provisions may not be enforceable, or the contracted party may not be financially capable of meeting its contractual obligations or adequately protecting us from liability. While we maintain various insurance policies, including product liability, professional liability, and cyber liability policies, adverse losses might be uninsured, not have sufficient insurance limits, or have high self-insured retentions that could have a materially adverse impact on our business.

Our ability to attract, engage, develop and retain qualified and experienced employees, including key executives and other talent, is essential for us to meet our objectives. We compete with many other businesses to attract and retain employees. Competition among potential employers might result in increased salaries, benefits or other employee-related costs, or in our failure to recruit and retain employees. Additionally, we may experience sudden, unexpected loss of key personnel due to a variety of causes, such as illness or death, and we must adequately plan for succession of key management roles. However, our succession plans may not be effective if, for example, an employee does not successfully transition into a new role. Any of these risks might have a materially adverse impact on our business operations and our financial position or results of operations.

Additionally, approximately 24% of our employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements, nearly all of whom are employees located outside of the U.S. We work to maintain strong relationships with our employees; however, if any of our employees in the locations that are unionized should engage in strikes or other such bargaining tactics in connection with the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements, such tactics could be disruptive to our operations, adversely affect our results of operations, and cause reputational harm.

Our businesses rely on sophisticated information systems and AI to obtain, rapidly process, analyze, and manage data to facilitate the purchase and distribution of thousands of inventory items from numerous distribution centers; to receive, process, and ship orders on a timely basis; to account for other product and service transactions with customers; to manage the accurate billing and collections for thousands of customers; and to process payments to suppliers. We continue to make substantial investments in our data centers, third-party cloud-based environments and services, distribution centers and information systems, including, but not limited to, those relating to our acquisition of RCA. The implementation of new information systems may be more time consuming or costly than we anticipate.

To the extent our information systems, including any new information systems, are not successfully implemented or fail, or to the extent there are data center failures, interruptions, or outages caused by factors such as infrastructure overload, ransomware attacks, security breaches or natural disasters, our business and results of operations may be materially adversely affected. Our business and results of operations may also be adversely affected if a third-party business partner does not perform satisfactorily and/or is impacted by a cybersecurity incident, or if information systems fail or are interrupted or damaged by unforeseen events, including due to the actions of third parties.

Information security risks have generally increased in recent years because of the changing threat landscape, evolving vulnerabilities, proliferation of cloud-based infrastructure and other information technology services, new technologies, supply chain dependencies and the increased sophistication and activities of perpetrators of cyberattacks. T4Security incidents such as ransomware attacks are becoming increasingly prevalent and severe, as well as increasingly difficult to detect. These risks have increased with the growth of our business, the interconnected nature of our supply chain and partnerships, and the breadth and scope of our information systems, including as we acquire or integrate the information systems of acquired businesses, such as RCA, into our enterprise. As we continue to integrate the information systems of different business units, there is an increasing possibility that a security incident in one business unit will affect others.

In addition, security incidents may disrupt our businesses and require that we expend substantial additional resources related to the security and recovery of information systems. Companies in our industry have increasingly been targeted for cyberattacks, and we operate in one of the most frequently targeted industries due to the attractiveness and value of proprietary business information, personal health information and other sensitive health data, as perceived by bad actors and criminals on the dark web. We, and our third-party business partners, have experienced detrimental cyberattacks. For example, we previously disclosed cybersecurity incidents in February 2024 and in March 2023. Although the prior incidents did not have a material adverse impact on us, either individually or in the aggregate, similar incidents or events in the future may do so.

Security breaches can occur as a result of technical and non-technical issues, including intentional or inadvertent actions by our personnel, service providers, or third-party business partners, or the exploitation of known or unknown vulnerabilities by a threat actor. A failure, interruption, or breach of our operational or information security systems, or those of our service providers or third-party business partners, as a result of cyberattacks or security breaches could disrupt our business, result in the loss, corruption, unplanned unavailability, disclosure or misuse of confidential or proprietary information or personal data, damage our reputation, cause loss of customers or revenue, increase our costs, result in litigation and/or regulatory action, and/or cause other losses, any of which, whether they involve us or our service providers or third-party business partners, might have a materially adverse impact on our business operations, business strategy, our ability to provide products/services to our customers and our financial position or results of operations.

We may not be aware of all vulnerabilities and cannot anticipate, detect, or implement fully effective preventative measures against all security threats, particularly because the techniques used are increasingly sophisticated and constantly evolving. For example, T5as AI continues to evolve, cyber attackers could also use AI to develop malicious code and sophisticated phishing attempts, and our use of AI could increase cybersecurity and data protection risks. As a result, cyber security and the continued development and enhancement of the security controls and processes designed to protect our systems, computers, software, data, and networks from attack, damage, failure, interruption, or unauthorized access remain a priority for us. Although we believe that we have robust security controls, processes, and other safeguards in place, as cyber threats continue to evolve, we may be required to expend additional resources to continue to enhance our security measures and to investigate and remediate information security vulnerabilities.

Our contractual arrangements with pharmaceutical manufacturers for the purchase of brand-name pharmaceutical products in the United States generally use wholesale acquisition cost (“WAC”) as the reference price. We sell brand-name pharmaceutical products to many of our customers using WAC as the reference price and to other customers based on their negotiated contract price. If manufacturers change their pricing policies or practices with regard to WAC or if prices charged by manufacturers do not align with prices negotiated to be paid by our customers, and we are unable to negotiate alternative ways to be compensated by manufacturers or customers for the value of our services, our results of operations could be adversely affected.

Additionally, there are a number of U.S. government policy initiatives being considered that, if enacted, could directly or indirectly regulate or impact WAC prices. If such initiatives are passed or finalized and we are unable to negotiate equitable changes with our suppliers and/or customers, our results of operations could be adversely impacted.

The pharmaceutical products that we purchase are also subject to price inflation and deflation, as well as the threatened and enacted tariffs described above. Additionally, certain distribution service agreements that we have entered into with brand-name and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers have a price appreciation component to them. As a result, our gross profit from brand-name and generic pharmaceuticals continues to be subject to fluctuation based upon the timing and extent of manufacturer price increases, which we do not control. If the frequency or rate of brand-name and generic pharmaceutical price increases slows, whether due to regulatory mandates, the implementation of legislative proposals, policy initiatives or voluntary manufacturer actions, our results of operations could be adversely affected.

In addition, generic pharmaceuticals are also subject to price deflation. If the frequency or rate of generic pharmaceutical price deflation accelerates, the negative impact on our results of operations would increase.

On May 12, 2025, the Executive Branch issued Executive Order 14297, “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients” (“Executive Order 14297”). Executive Order 14297 seeks to reduce prescription drug costs in the U.S. by requiring manufacturers to sell certain drugs in the U.S. at no higher than the lowest prices paid for those same drugs in other developed countries. Executive Order 14297 directs the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to facilitate direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) purchasing programs for prescription drugs at the most-favored-nation (“MFN”) price that may bypass traditional supply chain intermediaries. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget received a proposed rule for review to implement a “Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing (GLOBE) Model” on September 25, 2025, and another proposed rule to implement a “Guarding U.S.

Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs (GUARD) Model” on October 2, 2025, but neither proposed rule has been published. Although HHS has not yet otherwise issued any substantive regulatory proposals for DTC mechanisms, both the Executive Branch and the pharmaceutical manufacturers trade association have announced DTC websites for manufacturer DTC discounting programs. Further, some manufacturers have already announced alternative DTC models for a limited number of products in parallel to traditional retail distribution that may employ product shipment mechanisms that do not incorporate traditional wholesale distribution. MFN pricing pressures and DTC mechanisms could lead to voluntary or involuntary manufacturer price changes, which could be either temporary or long term, but all of which could adversely affect our business.

As described in greater detail in the “Competition” section of Item 1. Business of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the industries in which we operate are highly competitive. Our pharmaceutical distribution businesses not only compete with other pharmaceutical distributors, but also with manufacturers who sell directly to customers, chain drugstores who manage their own warehousing, specialty distributors, and packaging and healthcare technology companies. In addition, the healthcare industry continues to experience increasing consolidation, including through the formation of strategic alliances among pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail pharmacies, healthcare providers and health insurers, which may create further competitive pressures on our pharmaceutical distribution business. Continued consolidation within the healthcare industry could adversely affect our results of operations, to the extent we experience reduced negotiating power or possible customer losses.

Most of our customers buy pharmaceuticals and other products and services from us on credit. Credit is made available to customers based upon our assessment and analysis of their creditworthiness. Although we often try to obtain a security interest in assets and other arrangements intended to protect our credit exposure, we generally are either subordinated to the position of the primary lenders to our customers or substantially unsecured. Volatility of the capital and credit markets, general economic conditions including elevated interest rates, changes in customer payment terms, and regulatory changes (such as changes in reimbursement), may adversely affect the solvency or creditworthiness of our customers and their ability to maintain liquidity sufficient to repay their obligations to us as they become due.

The bankruptcy, insolvency, or other credit failure of any customer that has a substantial amount owed to us, including our largest customer, could have a material adverse effect on our revenue, results of operations, financial position, and cash flows. As of September 30, 2025, our two largest trade receivable balances due from customers (Walgreens and Boots together and Evernorth Health Services) represented approximately 38% and 5% of our accounts receivable, net.

Our relationships with pharmaceutical suppliers give rise to substantial amounts that are due to us from the suppliers, including amounts owed to us for returned goods or defective goods, chargebacks, and amounts due to us for services provided to the suppliers. Volatility of the capital and credit markets, general economic conditions, pending litigation, and regulatory changes may adversely affect the solvency or creditworthiness of our suppliers. The bankruptcy, insolvency, or other credit failure of any supplier at a time when the supplier has a substantial account payable balance due to us could have a material adverse effect on our business. Furthermore, the bankruptcy, insolvency or other credit failure of a significant supplier could have an adverse effect on the supply or availability of products which may cause supply chain disruptions and increases in the price of substitutes or alternatives.

If the capital and credit markets experience significant disruption and volatility in the future, we could experience downward movement in our stock price without regard to our financial position or results of operations or an adverse effect, which may be material, on our ability to access credit. While we believe that our operating cash flow and existing credit arrangements give us the ability to meet our financing needs, disruption and volatility could increase our costs of borrowing, impair our liquidity, or adversely impact our business. Additionally, rating agencies continually review the ratings that they have assigned to us and our outstanding debt securities. To maintain our ratings, we are required to meet certain financial performance ratios.

Liabilities related to litigation or any significant related settlement, an increase in our debt or a decline in our earnings could result in downgrades in our credit ratings. Actual or anticipated changes or downgrades in our credit ratings, including any announcement that our ratings are under review for a downgrade or have been assigned a negative outlook, could hinder our access to public debt markets, limit the institutions willing to provide credit to us, result in more restrictive financial and other covenants in our public and private debt, and would likely increase our overall borrowing costs and adversely affect our earnings.

Our operations and performance depend on the economic conditions in the U.S. and other countries or regions where we do business. Deterioration in general economic conditions could adversely affect the number of prescriptions that are filled and the number of pharmaceutical products purchased by consumers and, therefore, could reduce purchases by our customers, which would negatively affect our revenue growth and cause a decrease in our profitability. Negative trends in the general economy, including interest rate fluctuations, inflation, financial market volatility, or credit market disruptions, may also affect our customers’ ability to obtain credit to finance their businesses on acceptable terms and could result in reduced discretionary spending on health products by consumers.

Reduced purchases by our customers or changes in payment terms could adversely affect our revenue growth and cause a decrease in our cash flows from operations. Bankruptcies or similar events affecting our customers may cause us to incur bad debt expense at levels higher than historically experienced. Declining economic conditions or increases in inflation may also increase our costs.

T6The healthcare industry in the U.S., as well as in the other countries and regions in which we do business, is highly regulated at many levels of government. There have been increasing efforts in the U.S. by Congress, the Executive Branch, and state and federal agencies, including state boards of pharmacy, departments of health, the FDA, DEA, Department of Commerce, HHS, Transportation Security Administration, and Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), and by similar regulators in the U.K., the EU, and other countries, to regulate the pharmaceutical supply chain. Regulation of pharmaceutical distribution is intended to prevent diversion and the introduction of counterfeit, adulterated, and/or mislabeled drugs into the pharmaceutical distribution system, as well as ensure the integrity of products traversing the supply chain.

Consequently, we are subject to the risk of changes in various laws, which include operating, record keeping, and security standards of the DEA, the FDA, HHS, various state boards of pharmacy and comparable agencies. In recent years, some governments have passed or proposed laws and regulations intended to protect the safety and security of the supply chain that could substantially increase the costs and burden of pharmaceutical distribution.

At the federal level, in the U.S., the DSCSA establishes national traceability standards requiring drugs to be labeled and tracked at the bottle level, preempts state drug pedigree requirements, and requires all supply-chain stakeholders to participate in an electronic, interoperable prescription drug traceability system. The DSCSA also establishes requirements for drug wholesale distributors and third-party logistics providers, including licensing requirements applicable in states that had not previously licensed third-party logistics providers. The FDA issued a proposed rule on February 4, 2022, which, when finalized, will establish national standards for the licensure of wholesale drug distributors and third-party logistics providers.

In addition, failure to comply with the DQSA requirements or with additional similar governmental regulatory and licensing requirements may result in suspension or delay of certain operations and additional costs to bring our facilities into compliance. Our international operations may also be subject to local regulations containing record-keeping and other obligations related to our distribution operations in those locations. For example, the safety features of the Falsified Medicines Directive for EU member states consists of placing a unique identifier (a two-dimensional barcode) and an anti-tampering device on the outer packaging of medicines. Pedigree tracking laws increase our compliance burden and our pharmaceutical distribution costs and could have an adverse impact on our financial position or results of operations.

Several EU member states have adopted or are considering adopting laws and regulations aimed at mitigating or controlling drug supply shortages, and the EU’s proposal of the Critical Medicines Act in March 2025 as well as the ongoing comprehensive reform of EU pharmaceutical legislation (referred to as the “EU pharmaceutical package”) propose more stringent notification duties, mandatory stockpiling and detailed shortage prevention plans for certain drugs. These measures could require us and our partners to hold higher inventories, alter production and distribution plans, prioritize certain markets, and incur additional compliance and logistics costs, and non-compliance could result in fines, product seizures, operating restrictions, litigation, reputational harm, and loss of market access.

The evolving and fragmented nature of such requirements increases operational complexity and forecasting uncertainty, and could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

As discussed in the “Public concern over the abuse of medications could negatively affect our business” risk factor, certain governmental and regulatory agencies, as well as state and local jurisdictions, are focused on the abuse of opioid medications in the U.S. In addition to conducting investigations and participating in litigation related to the misuse of prescription opioid medications, federal, state and local governmental and regulatory agencies are considering legislation and regulatory measures to limit opioid prescriptions and more closely monitor distribution, prescribing, and dispensing of these drugs.

Any failures or delays in compliance by us, manufacturers, or others in our supply chain with the DQSA and DSCSA requirements, and other chain of custody and pharmaceutical distribution requirements, including follow-on actions related to current public concern over the abuse of opioid medications, could result in suspension or delays in our production and distribution activities or have an adverse effect on our ability to manage the supply of products, which may increase our costs and could otherwise adversely affect our results of operations.

In addition to the regulation of supply chain distribution arrangements, the products we sell may be subject to production, marketing, clinical or coverage restrictions through the FDA and HHS regulatory processes. For example, recent limitations on COVID-19 vaccinations and changes to pediatric vaccination schedules may have an adverse impact on the availability or access to certain products that we distribute. There can be no assurance such regulations will not have an adverse effect on our or our customers’ business.

Both our business and our customers’ businesses may be adversely affected by laws and regulations reducing coverage or reimbursement rates for pharmaceuticals and/or medical treatments or services, changing the methodology by which reimbursement levels are determined, or regulating pricing, contracting, and discounting practices with respect to medical products and services. Additionally, on occasion, price increases and pricing practices with respect to certain brand-name and generic pharmaceuticals have been the subject of governmental inquiries, national, federal and state investigations and private litigation. Any law or regulation impacting pharmaceutical pricing or reimbursement, such as pricing controls or indexing models at a national, federal or state level, could adversely affect our operations.

In the EU, many governments provide or subsidize healthcare to consumers and regulate pharmaceutical prices, patient eligibility, and reimbursement levels in order to control government healthcare system costs. For example, in most EU member states, the government often regulates pricing of a new pharmaceutical product at launch through direct price controls, international price comparisons, and controlling profits and/or reference pricing. Some European governments and statutory health insurers and payers have implemented or are considering austerity measures to reduce healthcare spending, such as price volume discounts or tiered rebates, cost caps, regulated wholesale margins, cost sharing for increases in excess of prior year costs for individual products or aggregated market level spending, outcome-based pricing schemes, and free products for a portion of the expected therapy period.

The new EU Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Regulation 2021/2282 became applicable on January 12, 2025 and aims at harmonizing HTA processes across EU member states, including by conducting joint clinical assessments of new drugs. The outcome of such joint clinical assessments is expected to influence national reimbursement decisions. All of these measures exert pressure on the pricing and reimbursement levels for pharmaceuticals and may cause our customers to purchase fewer of our products and services or influence us to reduce prices for our services.

In the U.S., the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) included numerous reforms broadening healthcare access and changing Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, pricing, and contracting for prescription drugs, including changes to the Medicaid rebate statute. We cannot predict the impact of any efforts to change or repeal any provisions of the ACA or that of any other healthcare legislation and regulation. In addition, current federal ACA premium subsidies are set to expire at the end of 2025 which, unless renewed, may contribute to increased premiums and/or loss of healthcare insurance coverage for certain patients. These outcomes could produce greater financial strains on our business and our customers (e.g., through increased uncompensated care) and could adversely affect demand for our products and services.

The federal government and state governments could take actions that impact Medicaid reimbursement and rebate amounts or the cost of drugs. Any reduction in the Medicaid reimbursement rates to our customers or changes affecting manufacturer rebate liabilities may indirectly impact the prices that we can charge our customers for multiple source pharmaceuticals or our distribution relationships and cause corresponding declines in our profitability. There can be no assurance that recent or future changes in Medicaid prescription drug reimbursement policies will not have an adverse impact on our business. Among other things, the removal of the ceiling on manufacturer Medicaid rebate amounts, effective January 1, 2024, has led to WAC price reductions and affected manufacturer price increases for certain products.

The Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”) made significant reforms affecting prescription drug pricing and reimbursement. These reforms include: (i) manufacturer inflation rebates on drugs covered under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D, to the extent such products’ prices increase faster than the rate of consumer price inflation; (ii) limits on Medicare Part B and Part D patients’ cost sharing for insulin; (iii) Medicare Part D benefit redesign, including replacement of the “coverage gap discounts” that pharmaceutical manufacturers previously paid with new mandatory manufacturer discounts applicable during all phases of the Part D benefit after satisfaction of the deductible; and (iv) federal price negotiation of “maximum fair prices” for certain “selected” high-expenditure drugs under Medicare Parts D and B, applicable beginning in 2026 for Part D drugs and 2028 for Part B drugs, under which maximum fair prices must be made available to pharmacies, physicians, and other entities dispensing or providing drugs covered under Medicare Parts D and B.

Although the primary effects of the IRA reforms will be felt by manufacturers, these changes may impact our customer pricing structures, our manufacturer distribution relationships and revenue, our customers’ billing processes and reimbursement amounts, the market shares of competing products, and drug prices more generally (including outside of the Medicare context). Among other issues, the mechanisms by which maximum fair prices will be made available to pharmacies, physicians and other purchasers of selected drugs, and our associated role and responsibilities, remain to be determined. CMS has proposed a mechanism under which manufacturers would issue rebates or credits to effectuate the maximum fair prices to pharmaceutical purchasers, directly or indirectly through a third-party clearinghouse, but has left open the option of manufacturers utilizing distribution mechanisms such as chargebacks.

Manufacturers are required to choose their methodology for price access compliance by December 2, 2025 for the first year of maximum fair pricing implementation starting January 1, 2026. More broadly, the law contains reimbursement and pricing incentives intended to promote biosimilar introduction and competition which may affect our customers’ selection of products. Each of these considerations, as well as other issues that may arise in connection with the implementation of the IRA, may adversely affect our operations and profitability as well as our customers’ operations, profitability, and cash flow. In addition, at least eight federal lawsuits have been filed by manufacturers seeking to invalidate the negotiated drug pricing features of the IRA.

To date, none of the manufacturers has prevailed in such litigation, but some cases may proceed to appellate review. The uncertainties associated with this litigation may create disruption with respect to both implementation of the law and pricing practices.

OBBBA, enacted in July 2025, includes a number of provisions that may affect access, coverage, and payment for medical products and services. For example, the legislation: (i) implements work requirements for certain Medicaid patients to maintain eligibility and expands cost-sharing for certain Medicaid-eligible individuals; (ii) allows Medicare payment cuts to certain hospitals and other providers to take effect; and (iii) tightens eligibility standards for ACA exchange subsidies. These provisions may impact the financial stability of our customers, and may limit coverage or payment, and therefore affect demand, for our products and services.

In addition to legislation affecting coverage and reimbursement, federal agency rules governing reimbursement and pricing programs may impact our business. For example, our businesses also sell specialty and other drugs to hospitals, specialty community physician practices (including oncology and retina specialists), and other providers that are reimbursed under Part B of the Medicare program. In November 2023, CMS finalized a retrospective refund rule that provides for lump-sum refund payments totaling approximately $9 billion to be made to affected 340B hospitals and requires budget neutrality for the hospital outpatient payment system as a whole, reducing Medicare payments to all hospitals for other hospital outpatient services by 0.5% for calendar years 2026-2040.

However, in July 2025, CMS issued a proposed rule which (i) would accelerate the recapture of refund amounts by ten years by increasing the payment reduction for other outpatient services to 2.0%, and (ii) proposes a new survey of hospitals’ 340B acquisition costs, which could be used as a basis for future Part B or other program payment reductions. There can be no assurance that the corresponding offsets, or other recent or future rules established by CMS will not have an adverse impact on our business.

In addition to the proposed Part B payment changes in the hospital outpatient context, CMS also finalized a separate rule in October 2025 which may affect the manner in which manufacturers calculate the average sales price (“ASP”) for their drugs, which is used to determine Medicare Part B payment amounts. Under current law, “bona fide service fees” (“BFSFs”) paid by manufacturers, including but not limited to distribution service fees paid to wholesalers, generally do not affect ASP calculations. The final rule would, among other things, tighten the standards for the BFSF exemptions by requiring certifications that fee recipients will not pass fees through to downstream customers or clients. These changes could result in reduced Part B payments for specialty products to our customers, and some manufacturers may seek to implement alternative pricing or contracting structures for their service fee relationships with wholesalers, providers, and other entities.

There can be no assurance that such outcomes will not have an adverse impact on our business (especially the practice management and physician specialty network organizations that we have recently invested in or acquired).

Further, even where a government entity does not affirmatively change drug price regulation standards, other parties in the drug manufacturing and distribution system may change their interpretation or approach to implementing or complying with those standards in a manner that may adversely affect our business. For example, the 340B drug discount program requires manufacturers to provide discounts on outpatient drugs to “covered entity” safety net providers, and there are significant ongoing disputes and emerging developments relating to that program. First, previous Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”) guidance has allowed covered entities to dispense 340B discounted drugs through arrangements with multiple “contract pharmacies.” Beginning in 2020, numerous manufacturers announced initiatives that inhibit or limit covered entities’ ability to use any, or multiple, contract pharmacies, place conditions on the use of contract pharmacies, or direct us not to honor 340B discounted pricing requests on orders to be shipped to contract pharmacies (or the manufacturers may not honor chargebacks where such discounts are extended to contract pharmacies).

While HRSA and the federal government are no longer challenging these manufacturers’ policies, a number of states have enacted legislation that would restrict such policies, and these new laws are the subject of ongoing litigation by manufacturers. To date, the states have generally prevailed in these actions in the lower courts, except that manufacturers have prevailed in litigation challenging West Virginia’s law, and several of these cases are now pending in the federal appellate courts. Our customers include covered entities and organizations with significant participation as contract pharmacies, and the unavailability of 340B discounts through contract pharmacy arrangements may adversely affect such customers and, therefore, could adversely affect our business.

Second, and relatedly, HRSA has finalized a rule that allows 340B program covered entities to bring administrative dispute claims against manufacturers for alleged 340B overcharges, including overcharges relating to contract pharmacy limits or other matters. A few covered entities have filed claims, and one decision has been issued in favor of a manufacturer based on the outcome of parallel federal court litigation described above, but such proceedings are otherwise in their early stages. While wholesale distributors are not parties to these proceedings, it is possible that either manufacturers or covered entities may seek data relating to underlying claims, which could indirectly increase our operational costs.

Third, manufacturers have proposed to implement rebate programs (in lieu of up-front discounts administered through wholesaler chargebacks) to alleviate some of the effects of the 340B price rule changes. The federal government refused to approve such proposals, and manufacturers have challenged these refusals in federal court. To date, the government has prevailed in all of these challenges in the lower courts, which have held that the agency has discretion to approve or disapprove rebate models, but one matter was remanded to the agency and other manufacturers have appealed these decisions. However, on August 1, 2025, the U.S. federal government announced that it would consider applications for a limited 340B rebate model on a demonstration basis, available solely for drugs that are subject to “negotiated pricing” under Medicare beginning in 2026, and HRSA subsequently announced that it had approved pilot 340B rebate programs for nine of the ten drugs subject to negotiated prices.

We cannot predict whether manufacturers will continue to propose rebate programs, the outcome of potential enforcement actions or litigation relating to those approaches, the effects of potential rebate models approved under the August 1, 2025 notice, or the potential for rebate models to expand beyond the products that are subject to negotiated pricing. Like the contract pharmacy restrictions, the rebate model described above may limit access to 340B pricing to covered entities and may also supplant 340B chargeback mechanisms that we administer, which could adversely affect our business and the business of our customers.

The federal government may adopt measures in the future that would further reduce Medicare and/or Medicaid spending or impose additional requirements on healthcare entities, including entities we manage or with which we are directly engaged through our recent MSO acquisition and investment. Any future reductions in Medicare reimbursement rates or modifications to Medicare drug pricing regulations, such as ASP calculations, or the extension of IRA pricing reforms to commercial health plans, could negatively impact our and our customers’ businesses and their ability to continue to purchase such drugs from us, or could indirectly affect the structure of our relationships with manufacturers and our customers. In addition, as noted, broader health policy changes, such as those contained in the OBBBA, may affect eligibility for and access to insurance coverage, eligibility for participation in the 340B drug pricing programs, and other reimbursement matters that may have adverse impacts on our cash flow and on our customers. We can provide no assurances that future Medicare, Medicaid or other insurance payment or policy changes, if adopted, would not have a material adverse effect on our business.

Finally, federal and state governments may adopt policies affecting drug pricing and contracting practices outside of the context of federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, which may adversely affect our business. For example, several states have adopted laws that require drug manufacturers to provide advance notice of certain price increases and to report information relating to those price increases, while others have taken legislative or administrative action to establish prescription drug affordability boards or multi-payer purchasing pools to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. If such programs were to proliferate, they have the potential to create significant channel disruption, with manufacturers seeking tighter controls for product access at the state level to ensure availability within each state rather than enabling arbitrage across state lines.

There can be no assurances that future changes to drug reimbursement policies, drug pricing and contracting practices outside of federal healthcare programs, or to government drug price regulation programs, such as the Medicaid rebate, ASP, or 340B program, will not have an adverse impact on our business.

We are subject to extensive and frequently changing laws and regulations relating to healthcare fraud and abuse, both in the U.S. and abroad. The U.S. federal government continues to strengthen its scrutiny of practices potentially involving healthcare fraud affecting Medicare, Medicaid and other government healthcare programs. Our relationships with healthcare providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers subject our business to laws and regulations on fraud and abuse which, among other things, (i) prohibit persons from soliciting, offering, receiving or paying any remuneration in order to induce the referral of a patient for treatment or the ordering or purchasing of items or services that are in any way paid for by Medicare, Medicaid or other government-sponsored healthcare programs, (ii) impose a number of restrictions upon referring physicians and providers of designated health services under Medicare and Medicaid programs, and (iii) authorize substantial civil money penalties and other remedies for submitting or causing the submission of false or fraudulent claims to the government.

Laws relating to healthcare fraud and abuse give federal enforcement personnel substantially increased funding, powers and remedies to pursue suspected fraud and abuse, and these enforcement authorities were further expanded by the ACA. Many states have enacted similar statutes, which are not necessarily limited to items and services for which payment is made by federal healthcare programs. While we believe that we are in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, many of the regulations applicable to us, including those relating to certain incentives offered in connection with sales of pharmaceutical products and related services, are vague or indefinite, and have not been interpreted by the courts. They may be interpreted or applied by a prosecutorial, regulatory or judicial authority in a manner that could require us to make changes in our operations.

If we fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations in the U.S. and other countries, we could be subject to administrative, civil and criminal penalties, including, in the U.S., the loss of licenses or our ability to participate in Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal or state healthcare programs.

Due to the nature of our operations, which we conduct through a variety of businesses, including the distribution of pharmaceuticals, the dispensing of healthcare products, and the provision of services to the pharmaceutical industry, each of our businesses may become involved in government investigations, legal disputes, or proceedings. These investigations, disputes or proceedings in the U.S. or other jurisdictions have involved or may involve healthcare fraud and abuse, the False Claims Act, antitrust, competition, class actions, commercial, cybersecurity and data privacy, employment, environmental, intellectual property, licensing, public disclosures and various other claims, including claims related to opioid medications. The Company’s Board of Directors and/or management team may also be the subject of derivative litigation, which can require significant time, attention and resources to resolve.

In addition, we may become involved in disputes with our manufacturers, customers, service providers, or other third-party business partners, including with respect to contract, pricing, or reimbursement matters, which we generally seek to resolve through commercial negotiations. If such negotiations are unsuccessful, the parties may litigate the dispute or otherwise attempt to settle the matter.

Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and the unfavorable outcome of legal proceedings could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. Litigation is costly, time-consuming, and disruptive to ordinary business operations. The defense and resolution of these current and future proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. Violations of various laws, including with respect to the marketing, sale, purchase, and dispensing of pharmaceutical products and the provision of services to the pharmaceutical industry, can result in criminal, civil, and administrative liability, for which there can be significant financial damages, criminal and civil penalties, and possible exclusion from participation in federal and state health programs. Any settlement, judgment or fine could materially adversely affect our results of operations.

Statutory and/or regulatory violations could also form the basis for qui tam complaints. The qui tam provisions of the federal and various state civil False Claims Acts authorize a private person, known as a relator, to file civil actions under these statutes on behalf of the federal and state governments. Under False Claims Acts, the filing of a qui tam complaint by a relator imposes obligations on government authorities to investigate the allegations and determine whether to intervene in the action. Such cases may involve allegations around the marketing, sale, purchase, and/or dispensing of brand-name and/or generic pharmaceutical products, the provision of services to the pharmaceutical industry, or misrepresentations on documents filed with U.S.

Customs and Border Protection that results in the underpayment of duties and tariffs. Qui tam complaints are filed under seal and remain sealed until the applicable court orders otherwise. Our business and results of operations could be adversely affected if qui tam complaints are filed against us for alleged violations of any health or customs laws and regulations and damages arising from resultant false claims, if the litigation proceeds whether government authorities decide to intervene in any such matters, and/or if we are found liable for all or any portion of violations alleged in any such matters.

The Distributor Settlement Agreement, which we and the other two national pharmaceutical distributors negotiated to resolve a substantial majority of opioid lawsuits filed by state and local government entities, became effective on April 2, 2022, and as of September 30, 2025, it included 48 of 49 eligible states (the “Settling States”) as well as 99% by population of the eligible political subdivisions in the Settling States. Our accrued litigation liability related to the Distributor Settlement Agreement, including the State of Alabama and an estimate for non-participating government subdivisions (with whom we have not reached a settlement agreement), as well as other opioid-related litigation for which we have reached settlement agreements was $4.3 billion as of September 30, 2025.

The $4.3 billion liability will be paid over 13 years. We currently estimate that $416.0 million will be paid prior to September 30, 2026, which is recorded in Accrued Expenses and Other on our Consolidated Balance Sheet. The remaining long-term liability of $3.9 billion is recorded in Accrued Litigation Liability on our Consolidated Balance Sheet. While we have accrued our estimated liability for opioid litigation, we are unable to estimate the range of possible loss associated with the matters that are not included in the accrual. Because loss contingencies are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable developments or resolutions can occur, the assessment is highly subjective and requires significant judgments about future events.

We regularly review opioid litigation matters to determine whether an accrual is adequate. The amount of ultimate loss may differ materially from the amount accrued to date. Until such time as otherwise resolved, we will continue to litigate and prepare for trial and to vigorously defend ourselves in all such matters. Since these matters are still developing, we are unable to predict the outcome, but the result of these lawsuits could include excessive monetary verdicts and/or injunctive relief, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows and could result in a lower than historical level of capital available for deployment, including a lower level of capital returned to stockholders. Further details on the Distributor Settlement Agreement and opioid-related legal proceedings are provided in Note 12 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Certain governmental and regulatory agencies, as well as state and local jurisdictions, are focused on the abuse of opioid medications, controlled substance medications, and other medications. Federal, state and local governmental and regulatory agencies are conducting investigations of us and others in the pharmaceutical supply chain, including pharmaceutical manufacturers, national retail pharmacy chains, independent pharmacies, prescribers, and other pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, regarding the manufacture, dispensing, and distribution of opioid medications, controlled substance medications, and other medications subject to abuse. In addition, a significant number of lawsuits have been filed against us, other pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, and others in the pharmaceutical supply chain by state and local governmental entities and other plaintiffs for claims related to the Company’s distribution of opioid medications.

These lawsuits allege, among other claims, that we failed to provide effective controls and procedures to guard against the diversion of controlled substances, acted negligently by distributing controlled substances to pharmacies that serve individuals who abuse controlled substances, and failed to report suspicious orders of controlled substances in accordance with regulations. Additional governmental and regulatory entities have indicated an intent to sue and may conduct investigations of us in the future, and lawsuits could be brought against the Company by other plaintiffs under other theories related to opioid abuse. We are deeply committed to diversion control efforts, have sophisticated systems to identify orders placed warranting further review to determine if they are suspicious (including through the use of data analytics), and engage in due diligence and ongoing monitoring of customers.

We are also being sued by private plaintiffs, such as unions, other health and welfare funds, hospital systems, third-party payors, other healthcare providers and individuals alleging personal injury for the same activities and continue to be named as a defendant in additional opioid-related lawsuits. Further details on opioid-related legal proceedings are provided in Note 12 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Distributor Settlement Agreement includes injunctive relief terms relating to distributors’ controlled substance anti-diversion programs. A monitor is overseeing compliance with these provisions for a period of five years. In addition, the distributors have engaged a third-party vendor to act as a clearinghouse for data aggregation and reporting, which the distributors will fund for ten years. It is possible that the implementation and maintenance of the required changes to distributors’ controlled substance anti-diversion programs may result in unforeseen costs or operational challenges that could have an adverse impact on our results of operations or performance.

Legislative, regulatory or industry measures to address the misuse of prescription opioid medications may also affect our business in ways that we are not be able to predict. Certain jurisdictions have enacted, and others are considering, legislation that could require entities to pay an assessment or tax on the sale or distribution of opioid medications in those states. If additional state or local jurisdictions enact legislation that taxes or assesses the sale or distribution of opioid medications and we are not able to mitigate the impact on our business through operational changes or commercial arrangements where permitted, such legislation in the aggregate may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

Ongoing unfavorable publicity regarding the abuse or misuse of prescription opioid pain medications and the role of wholesale distributors in the supply chain of such prescription medications, as well as the continued proliferation of opioid lawsuits, investigations, regulations and legislative actions, and unfavorable publicity in relation to those lawsuits, could continue to have a material adverse effect on our reputation or results of operations.

We are subject to tax laws and regulations of the U.S. federal, state and local governments, and various foreign jurisdictions. From time to time, various legislative initiatives are proposed that could adversely affect our tax positions and/or our tax liabilities. This includes, for example, increases to U.S. or foreign income tax rates and taxes based on gross revenues. In addition, several jurisdictions have enacted or proposed changes to global income taxation, which could have a negative impact on our effective tax rate. There can be no assurance that our effective tax rate or tax payments will not be adversely affected by legislation resulting from these initiatives both within the U.S. and other foreign jurisdictions in which we operate.

In addition, we are subject to the examination of our income and non-income tax returns by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, U.S. states and foreign tax authorities. Due to the ambiguity of tax laws and regulations, the subjectivity of factual interpretations, and the complexity of our business and intercompany arrangements, there can be no assurance that our tax positions will not be challenged by relevant tax authorities or that we would be successful in any such challenge. These examinations may result in unforeseen tax-related liabilities, which may negatively impact our future financial results.

We are subject to laws concerning our business operations and marketing activities in foreign countries where we conduct business. For example, we are subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”), U.S. export control and trade sanction laws, and similar anti-corruption and international trade laws in certain foreign countries, such as the U.K. Bribery Act, any violation of which could create substantial liability for us and also cause a loss of reputation in the market. We may also have substantial liability if a third party acting on our behalf or on the behalf of our subsidiaries (including our joint venture partners) is in violation of these laws.

In connection with our acquisitions, our results of operations and financial position may be adversely affected if we are not able to put in place effective financial controls and compliance policies to safeguard against risks of violating the FCPA or other anti-corruption and international trade laws as part of our integration of acquired businesses. If we are found to have violated the FCPA, we may face sanctions including civil and criminal fines, disgorgement of profits, and suspension or debarment of our ability to contract with government agencies or receive export licenses. We have business operations in many countries worldwide, including in China, India, Turkey, and other countries that are considered to have higher risk business environments that could give rise to potential violations of, and liabilities in connection with, applicable anti-bribery, anti-corruption, and/or international trade law, and we must maintain effective internal controls, policies, and procedures in such jurisdictions.

We cannot guarantee that such internal controls, policies and procedures will always prevent and protect us from such potential violations or liabilities. From time to time, we may face audits or investigations by one or more domestic or foreign government agencies relating to our international business activities, compliance with which could be costly and time-consuming, and could divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business operations. An adverse outcome under any such investigation or audit could subject us to fines or other penalties, which could adversely affect our business, financial position, and results of operations.

Given the nature of our business, we, together with our service providers and third-party business partners, receive, collect, process, use, and retain sensitive and confidential customer, patient, personnel, and business partner data, in addition to proprietary business information. Additionally, we maintain other confidential, proprietary, or otherwise sensitive information relating to our business and received from third parties.

Global privacy, cybersecurity, data protection and AI-related laws, regulations, and best practices are evolving, extensive, and complex. Compliance with these laws and regulations is challenging and costly. The interpretation and application of these laws in some instances is uncertain, and our legal and regulatory obligations are subject to frequent changes. We are required to comply with increasingly complex and changing data privacy regulations both in the U.S. and beyond that regulate the collection, storage, use, security, processing, and transfer of personal data, including particularly the transfer of personal data between or among countries. Many of these regulations also grant rights to individuals. Many foreign data privacy regulations (including, without limitation, the EU GDPR, the U.K.

GDPR, Brazil’s General Data Protection Law (“LGPD”), and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act in Canada) and certain U.S. state laws and regulations impose requirements beyond those enacted under United States federal law and, in some instances, allow for a private right of action. For example, the EU GDPR imposes more stringent data protection requirements, including a broader scope of protected data, restrictions on cross-border transfers of personal data and more onerous breach reporting requirements, and imposes greater penalties for non-compliance than the federal data protection laws in the U.S. States and other countries continue to enact similar legislation. We are also required to comply with expanding and increasingly complex cybersecurity laws and regulations in the U.S. and abroad (including the EU) with respect to reporting information security incidents and additional requirements for avoiding or responding to an adverse event.

We may also face audits or investigations by domestic or foreign government agencies relating to our compliance with these regulations. An adverse outcome under any such investigation or audit could subject us to fines or other penalties. We also have contractual obligations to our customers related to the protection of personal data and compliance with privacy and cybersecurity laws.

A threat actor who is able to compromise the security measures of our networks and systems, or those of our service providers or third-party business partners, could misappropriate either proprietary business information or the personal data of our customers, patients, or personnel. Our use of AI, or the use of AI by our service providers or third-party business partners, could also result in the misappropriation of, unauthorized access to, or disclosure of such information. Any actual or perceived breach of proprietary business information or personal data could expose us to increased risk of lawsuits, regulatory penalties, loss of existing or potential customers, harm to our business relationships, damage relating to loss of proprietary information, harm to our reputation and increases in our security, legal, and insurance costs.

The foregoing or other circumstances related to our collection, use, and transfer of proprietary business information or personal data could cause a loss of reputation in the market and/or adversely affect our business and financial position.

Regulatory frameworks governing AI are rapidly evolving and may impose significant obligations on our development, deployment, and use of AI. In particular, the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act imposes requirements on AI system providers, importers, distributors, and users, as well as on general-purpose AI systems. Non-compliance may be subject to fines. U.S. federal, state, and local laws and regulations applicable to AI and the expansion of existing laws and regulations to AI continue to increase and have focused, in particular, on the use and impact of AI in the healthcare industry. While we have an AI policy in place, the complicated and changing nature of AI technology and related laws and regulations increase our compliance costs and may result in changes to our operations, products and services, complicate compliance efforts, and increase risk of enforcement, penalties, or other legal proceedings.

We heavily depend on our supply chain to provide our products and services to customers, and a cybersecurity incident involving a supplier, subcontractor, or other service provider or third-party business partner could significantly affect us. To evaluate third-party cybersecurity controls, we utilize third-party cybersecurity monitoring and alerting tools, cybersecurity due diligence questionnaires, and request and review independent third-party audit reports and assurance certifications if they exist. Based on these reviews, we collaborate directly with our third-party business partners to address identified deficiencies and also incorporate security and privacy addenda into our contracts when applicable. We also ensure that our third-party business partners adhere to cybersecurity requirements as mandated by laws and regulations.

This includes requiring our third-party business partners to implement specific security controls and to report any cybersecurity incidents to us, allowing us to assess the potential impact on our organization. Despite our comprehensive approach to conducting diligence on the cybersecurity controls of our third-party business partners, we may not be able to prevent a third-party business partner from experiencing a cybersecurity incident and any cyber incident affecting our third-party business partners could significantly disrupt our operations.

We believe that maintaining and enhancing our reputation is critical to our ability to expand and retain our customer base, strategic partnerships and other key relationships. Any negative publicity about us or our industry may adversely impact our business and operations. Furthermore, any actual or perceived failure to comply with ethical, social, regulatory, product, labor, health and safety, quality, accounting, or environmental requirements or standards could also jeopardize our reputation and potentially lead to various adverse actions, including litigation, audits, investigations, or adverse stakeholder action. Negative claims or publicity, including on social media, could adversely affect our reputation and business, regardless of their accuracy. Our reputation may also depend on the success of our corporate responsibility initiatives that require Company-wide coordination and alignment among varying jurisdictions.

For example, there continues to be an increased focus by governmental and nongovernmental organizations on corporate responsibility and sustainability-related actions, targets, and disclosures; increased costs and investment associated with corporate responsibility efforts (including supply chain due diligence); and increasing compliance obligations with related laws, regulations, and standards (including the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive in the EU). Given the varied and at times divergent views of different stakeholder groups, any action or inaction by us with respect to corporate responsibility initiatives may be perceived negatively by some stakeholders. Furthermore, the regulatory landscape surrounding corporate responsibility matters continues to evolve and remains uncertain. All of the foregoing could expose us to market, operational and execution costs or risks, as well as litigation, audits, investigations, or adverse stakeholder action.

Any corporate responsibility or sustainability metrics that we currently or may in the future disclose, whether based on the standards that we set for ourselves or those set by third parties, may influence our reputation and the value of our brands. There is also continued focus, including by investors, customers, and other stakeholders, on corporate responsibility matters, including with respect to the use of certain materials and minerals, fleet electrification, sustainable packaging, emissions reporting, waste generation, supply chain diligence, human capital, and health and safety. Our reputation could be damaged if we do not, or are perceived not to, act in a way that is aligned with stakeholder expectations with respect to corporate responsibility matters, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

We rely on trade secret, trademark, patent, and copyright laws, nondisclosure obligations, and other contractual provisions and technical measures to protect our proprietary rights in our services, solutions, products, and brands. We may be unable to prevent third parties from using our intellectual property without our authorization, and we might initiate costly and time-consuming litigation or other proceedings to protect our trade secrets, to enforce our intellectual property rights, and/or to determine the scope and validity of the proprietary rights of others. Our competitors might develop non-infringing services and solutions equivalent or superior to ours. Our intellectual property protection efforts might be inadequate to protect our rights or prevent third-party claims of infringement.

In addition, the laws of some non-U.S. jurisdictions, particularly those of certain emerging markets, may provide less protection for our proprietary rights than the laws of the U.S. and present greater risks of infringement. As we expand our services in various markets, we may not be able to secure intellectual property protection, including trademark protection, in some markets or categories of products or services. To the extent we cannot protect our intellectual property, unauthorized use and misuse of our intellectual property could harm our competitive position and have a material adverse impact on the Company.

We have been and may in the future be adversely affected by events outside of our control, including: widespread public health issues, such as infectious diseases; natural disasters and other catastrophic events such as earthquakes, floods, or severe weather, including as a result of climate change; government policy changes; and political events such as terrorism, political tensions, military conflicts, civil unrest, sanctions, tariffs or other trade restrictions, and trade wars. These events can disrupt operations for us, our suppliers, our service providers, and our customers, as well as impair product manufacturing, supply, and transport availability and cost in unpredictable ways that depend on highly uncertain future developments. They might affect consumer confidence levels and spending or the availability of certain goods or commodities.

In response to these types of events, we might suspend operations, implement extraordinary procedures, incur increased costs, or seek alternate sources for product supply, or suffer consequences that are unexpected and difficult to mitigate. Any of these risks might have a material adverse impact on the Company.

U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) require us to test our goodwill for impairment on an annual basis, or more frequently if indicators for potential impairment exist. Indicators that are considered include significant changes in performance relative to expected operating results, significant negative industry or economic trends, including rising interest rates, or a significant decline in our stock price and/or market capitalization for a sustained period of time. In addition, we periodically review our long-lived assets for impairment when events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value may not be recoverable. Factors that may be considered a change in circumstances indicating that the carrying value of our long-lived assets may not be recoverable include slower growth rates, the loss of a significant customer, or divestiture of a business or asset for below its carrying value. The testing required by GAAP involves estimates and judgments by management.

We have recorded, and may be required to record, a significant charge to earnings in our consolidated financial statements during the period in which any impairment of our goodwill or long-lived assets is determined. Any such charge could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations. For example, we continued to experience a weakening in demand for specialized services in the life sciences industry, which has negatively impacted the operating results of PharmaLex. In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2025 and in connection with the Company’s annual budgeting process, the Company revised PharmaLex’s long-range forecast. In connection with the Company’s annual goodwill impairment assessment, it recorded a full impairment of the remaining goodwill of $723.9 million in the PharmaLex reporting unit.

Our Bylaws provide that unless the Company consents in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the sole and exclusive forum for any (i) derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of the Company; (ii) action asserting a claim for or based on a breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any current or former director, officer or other employee or stockholder to the Company or the Company’s stockholders; (iii) action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”), or our Certificate of Incorporation or Bylaws or as to which the DGCL confers jurisdiction on the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware; or (iv) action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine of the law of the State of Delaware, shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the Delaware Court of Chancery located within the State of Delaware (or, if such court does not have subject matter jurisdiction thereof, the federal district court of the District of Delaware).

Additionally, our Bylaws provide that unless the Company consents in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, U.S. federal district courts shall be the sole and exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act. The choice of forum provisions may increase costs to bring a claim, discourage claims or limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with the Company or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice-of-forum provisions contained in our Bylaws to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions.

The exclusive forum provisions in our Bylaws will not preclude or contract the scope of exclusive federal or concurrent jurisdiction for actions brought under the federal securities laws, including the Exchange Act or the Securities Act, or the respective rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.