amerisourcebergen corporation 2005 closed four distribution facilities and eliminated duplicative administrative functions ( 201cthe fiscal 2004 initiatives 201d ) . during the fiscal year ended september 30 , 2004 , the company recorded $ 5.4 million of employee severance costs in connection with the fiscal 2004 initiatives . during the fiscal year ended september 30 , 2005 , the company announced plans to continue to consolidate and eliminate certain administrative functions , and to outsource a significant portion of the company 2019s information technology activities ( the 201cfiscal 2005 initiatives 201d ) . the company plans to have successfully completed the outsourcing of such information technology activities by the end of fiscal 2006 . during the fiscal year ended september 30 , 2005 , the company recorded $ 13.3 million of employee severance and lease cancellation costs primarily related to the 2005 initiatives and $ 9.4 million of transition costs associated with the outsourcing of information technology activities . as of september 30 , 2005 , approximately 700 employees had received termination notices as a result of the 2004 and 2005 initiatives , of which approximately 630 have been terminated . additional amounts for integration initiatives will be recognized in subsequent periods as facilities to be consolidated are identified and specific plans are approved and announced . most employees receive their severance benefits over a period of time , generally not to exceed 12 months , while others may receive a lump-sum payment . the following table displays the activity in accrued expenses and other from september 30 , 2003 to september 30 , 2005 related to the integration plan discussed above ( in thousands ) : employee lease cancellation severance costs and other total .
without employee severance costs in 2004 and 2005 , what would have been the increase in net income in millions?\\n\\n
note 12 . legal matters and contingencies in the ordinary course of its business , the company becomes involved in lawsuits , administrative proceedings and governmental investigations , including antitrust , environmental , product liability , regulatory and other matters . significant damages or penalties may be sought from the company in some matters , and some matters may require years for the company to resolve . the company establishes reserves based on its periodic assessment of estimates of probable losses . there can be no assurance that an adverse resolution of one or more matters during any subsequent reporting period will not have a material adverse effect on the company 2019s results of operations for that period . however , on the basis of information furnished by counsel and others and taking into consideration the reserves established for pending matters , the company does not believe that the resolution of currently pending matters ( including those matters specifically described below ) , individually or in the aggregate , will have a material adverse effect on the company 2019s financial condition . stockholder derivative lawsuit the company has been named as a nominal defendant in a stockholder derivative action on behalf of the company under delaware law that was filed in march 2004 in the u.s . district court for the eastern district of pennsylvania . also named as defendants in the action are all of the individuals who were serving as directors of the company prior to the date of filing of the action and certain current and former officers of the company and its predecessors . the derivative action alleged , among other things , breach of fiduciary duty , abuse of control and gross mismanagement against all the individual defendants . it further alleged , among other things , waste of corporate assets , unjust enrichment and usurpation of corporate opportunity against certain of the individual defendants . the derivative action sought compensatory and punitive damages in favor of the company , attorneys 2019 fees and costs , and further relief as may be determined by the court . the defendants believe that this derivative action is wholly without merit . in may 2004 , the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on both procedural and substantive grounds . in february 2005 , the district court granted the defendants 2019 motion to dismiss the entire action . following the dismissal of the action , the derivative plaintiff made demand upon the company to inspect the company 2019s books and records . the company believes that the demand is improper under delaware law and has refused to allow the inspection . the derivative plaintiff obtained the right from the district court to file an amended complaint within 30 days after resolution of the inspection demand and , thereafter , filed a complaint in the delaware chancery court seeking to compel inspection of certain of the company 2019s books and records . on november 30 , 2005 , the delaware chancery court denied the plaintiff 2019s request to inspect the company 2019s books and records . new york attorney general subpoena in april 2005 , the company received a subpoena from the office of the attorney general of the state of new york ( the 201cnyag 201d ) requesting documents and responses to interrogatories concerning the manner and degree to which the company purchases pharmaceuticals from other wholesalers , often referred to as the alternate source market , rather than directly from manufacturers . similar subpoenas have been issued by the nyag to other pharmaceutical distributors . the company has not been advised of any allegations of misconduct by the company . the company has engaged in discussions with the nyag , initially to clarify the scope of the subpoena and subsequently to provide background information requested by the nyag . the company continues to produce responsive information and documents and to cooperate with the nyag . the company believes that it has not engaged in any wrongdoing , but cannot predict the outcome of this matter. .