FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Good Neighbor Pharmacy litigation history

What Good Neighbor Pharmacy disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document. Item 3 lists the material legal actions a franchisor must report; Item 4 covers bankruptcy. This is the franchisor's own disclosure, not a court record, and not legal advice.

Items 3 (litigation) & 4 (bankruptcy) at a glance

What the filing discloses

Cases disclosed: 3; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: $625.0M; As stated in Item 3

Bankruptcy (Item 4): None; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2025; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

Three disclosed matters: (1) Mullen/Omni/Sypula False Claims Act settlement ($625M); (2) National Prescription Opiate MDL litigation (various settlements including $4.3B Distributor Settlement Agreement); (3) DOJ civil complaint against Cencora/ABDC for Controlled Substances Act violations re suspicious order reporting.

Item 3 (litigation) · 3 matters disclosed · 2 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (2)

Matter with no printed caption
pending
Government or regulatory action · filed 2022-12-29 · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
“On December 29, 2022, the Department of Justice filed a civil complaint (the “Complaint”) against Cencora, ABDC, and Integrated Commercialization Services, LLC (“ICS”), a subsidiary of Cencora, alleging violations of the Controlled Substances Act. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Cencora negligently failed to report suspicious orders to the Drug Enforcement Administration.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
In re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation
pending
Government or regulatory action · N.D. Ohio (MDL) · 1:17-md-02804
“… Case Number 1:17-md-02804 (N.D. Ohio). A significant number of counties, municipalities, and other governmental entities in a majority of U.S. states and Puerto Rico, as well as numerous states and tribes, filed lawsuits in various federal, state and other courts against pharmaceutical wholesale distributors”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Within this matter, as the filing narrates it · 4 proceedings
- Matter with no printed caption
  pending
  Government or regulatory action · names the parent company · Cencora, Inc. (the filing says 'the defendants, including Cencora') · United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (appeal: Fourth Circuit)
  “Southern District of West Virginia, the Court entered judgment in favor of the defendants, including Cencora. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the Court’s decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on August 2, 2022. On October 28, 2025, the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in the case, vacated the District Court’s judgment”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
- Matter with no printed caption
  pending
  Government or regulatory action · names the franchisor · Circuit Court for Baltimore City (appeal to the Appellate Court of Maryland; certiorari petitions to the Supreme Court of Maryland)
  “In Maryland, a trial commenced on September 16, 2024 in a case filed by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. On November 12, 2024, the jury returned a verdict finding ABDC (and another national distributor) liable for public nuisance and assessing approximately $274 million total in compensatory damages,”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
- Matter with no printed caption
  settled
  names the parent company · Cencora, Inc. (with two other national pharmaceutical distributors) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (MDL Court)
  “On August 29, 2024, Cencora and two other national pharmaceutical distributors entered into a proposed class action settlement agreement to resolve the opioid-related claims of a proposed settlement class of third-party payors.”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
- Matter with no printed caption
  settled
  names the parent company · Cencora, Inc. (with two other national pharmaceutical distributors) · United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
  “On September 26, 2024, Cencora and two other national pharmaceutical distributors entered into a proposed class action settlement agreement to resolve the opioid-related claims of a proposed settlement class of hospitals.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Counted as one matter, the way Item 3 groups it.

Concluded (1)

United States ex rel. Michael Mullen v. AmerisourceBergen Corporation, et al.
settled
Government or regulatory action · E.D.N.Y · CV-10-4856
“In these three related cases, Cencora settled civil claims pertaining to a formerly operating subsidiary of AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group, LLC’s alleged violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §3730(b). Cencora paid the sum of $625 million to settle the cases without any admission of liability.”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

4 of the proceedings above are indented under the matter they belong to because the filing narrates them inside it — an appeal, a consolidated case, a related arbitration. Each carries its own quote and page. They are counted with their matter, not as extra matters, so this list and the 3 Item 3 discloses agree.

Item 3 lists the litigation the franchisor must disclose; a matter against a parent, an affiliate or a named officer is not a matter against the franchisor, and pending claims are allegations, not findings.

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

Extensive litigation history including False Claims Act settlements, opioid distribution MDL settlements, public nuisance verdict, and DOJ Controlled Substances Act violations creates significant legal and operational risk

The verdict grade is FranchiseVerdict's editorial assessment across SBA loan performance, unit growth, revenue and disclosure signals. It is not investment advice.

Before you weigh a lawsuit

How to read Item 3

A franchisor must disclose pending actions and any material civil action involving the franchise relationship, plus convictions or civil judgments for fraud, unfair or deceptive practices, or franchise-law violations, going back ten years. A case the franchisor brought against a franchisee counts too. Item 3 does not include every dispute: settled claims below the materiality line and matters resolved in private arbitration can be absent.

Questions worth asking current and former franchisees, using the contact list in Item 20:

Were you, or anyone you know in the system, party to a dispute with the franchisor?
Was it resolved by settlement, arbitration or a court, and on what terms?
Has the number of disputes gone up or down since you signed?

Back to the Good Neighbor Pharmacy verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls