Legal Proceedings | Note 18 – Legal Proceedings Beginning in January 2016, purported class action complaints were filed against Patterson Companies, Inc. (“Patterson”), Benco Dental Supply Co. (“Benco”) and Henry Schein, Inc. Although there were factual and legal variations among these complaints, each of these complaints alleges, among other things, that defendants conspired to fix prices, allocate customers and foreclose competitors by boycotting manufacturers, state dental associations and others that deal with defendants’ competitors. On February 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims a gainst defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes. On February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C., Casey Ne lson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D., Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D., P.A. (collectively, “putative class representatives”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled In re D ental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB. In the consolidated class action complaint, putative class representatives allege a nationwide agreement among Henry Schein, Benco, Patterson and non-party Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc. (“Burkhart”) not to compete on price. The consolidated class action complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees. On September 28, 2018, the parties executed a settlement agreement that proposes, subject to court approval, a full and final settlement of the lawsuit on a classwide basis. The court has schedule d a fairness hearing for June 14, 2019. Subject to certain exceptions, the settlement class consists of all persons or entities that purchased dental products directly from Henry Schein, Patterson, Benco, Burkhart, or any combination thereof, during the p eriod August 31, 2008 through and including March 31, 2016. As a result, in our third quarter of fiscal 2018, we recorded a charge of $38.5 million, which was paid into a settlement fund in January 2019. On August 31, 2012, Archer and White Sales, In c. (“Archer”) filed a complaint against Henry Schein, Inc. as well as Danaher Corporation and its subsidiaries Instrumentarium Dental, Inc., Dental Equipment, LLC, Kavo Dental Technologies, LLC and Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation (collectively, the “Danaher Defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-00572-JRG, styled as an antitrust action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and the Texas Free Enterprise Antitrust Act. Archer alleges a conspi racy between Henry Schein, an unnamed company and the Danaher Defendants to terminate or limit Archer’s distribution rights. On August 1, 2017, Archer filed an amended complaint, adding Patterson and Benco as defendants, and alleging that Henry Schein, Pa tterson, Benco and Burkhart conspired to fix prices and refused to compete with each other for sales of dental equipment to dental professionals and agreed to enlist their common suppliers, the Danaher Defendants, to join a price-fixing conspiracy and boyc ott by reducing the distribution territory of, and eventually terminating, their price-cutting competing distributor Archer. Archer seeks damages in an amount to be proved at trial, to be trebled with interest and costs, including attorneys’ fees, jointly and severally, as well as injunctive relief. On October 30, 2017, Archer filed a second amended complaint, to add additional allegations that it believes support its claims. The named parties and causes of action are the same as the August 1, 2017 amend ed complaint. On October 1, 2012, we filed a motion for an order: (i) compelling Archer to arbitrate its claims against us; (2) staying all proceedings pending arbitration; and (3) joining the Danaher Defendants’ motion to arbitrate and stay. On May 28 , 2013, the Magistrate Judge granted the motions to arbitrate and stayed proceedings pending arbitration. On June 10, 2013, Archer moved for reconsideration before the District Court judge. On December 7, 2016, the District Court Judge granted Archer’s m otion for reconsideration and lifted the stay. Defendants appealed the District Court’s order. On December 21, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order denying the motions to compel arbitration. On June 25, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States granted defendants’ petition for writ of certiorari. On October 29, 2018, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments. On January 8, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its published decision vacating the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remanding the case to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action. On August 17, 2017, IQ Dental Supply, Inc. (“IQ Dental”) fi led a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled IQ Dental Supply, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Companies, Inc. and Benco Dental Supply Company, Case No. 2:17-cv-4834. Plaintiff alleges that it is a distri butor of dental supplies and equipment, and sells dental products through an online dental distribution platform operated by SourceOne Dental (“SourceOne”). SourceOne had previously brought an antitrust lawsuit against Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco, w hich Henry Schein settled in the second quarter of 2017 and which is described in our prior filings with the SEC. IQ Dental alleges, among other things, that defendants conspired to suppress competition from IQ Dental and SourceOne for the marketing, dist ribution and sale of dental supplies and equipment in the United States, and that defendants unlawfully agreed with one another to boycott dentists, manufacturers and state dental associations that deal with, or considered dealing with, plaintiff and Sourc eOne. Plaintiff claims that this alleged conduct constitutes unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, New York’s Donnelly Act and the New Jersey Antitrust Act, and also makes pendant state law claims for tortious inter ference with prospective business relations, civil conspiracy and aiding and abetting. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory, treble and punitive damages, jointly and severally, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and ex pert fees. On December 21, 2017, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 19, 2018, IQ Dental appealed the District Court’s order. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on Sept ember 13, 2018. The court’s decision is pending. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action. On February 12, 2018, the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a complaint against Benco Dental Supply Co., Henry Schein, Inc. and Patterson Companies, Inc. The FTC alleges, among other things, that defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws by conspiring, and entering into an agreement, to refuse to provide discounts to or otherwise serve buying groups representing dental practiti oners. The FTC alleges that defendants conspired in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The complaint seeks equitable relief only and does not seek monetary damages. We deny the allegation that we conspired to refuse to provide discounts to or otherw ise serve dental buying groups and intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action. A hearing before an administrative law judge began on October 16, 2018 and the hearing record was closed on February 21 , 2019 . The matter is ongoing and a decision has not yet been issued. We believe this matter will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations. On March 7, 2018, Joseph Salkowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against Henry Schein, Inc., Stanley M. Bergman and Steven Paladino in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 1:18-cv-01428. The complaint sought to certify a class consisting of all persons and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased Henry Schein securities from March 7, 2013 through February 12, 2018 (the “Class Period”). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants had made materially false and misleading statements about Henry Schein’s business, operations and prospects during the Class Period, including matters relating to the issues in the antitrust class action and the FTC action described above, there by causing the plaintiff and members of the purported class to pay artificially inflated prices for Henry Schein securities. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial. Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigati on Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”), the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on June 22, 2018 and recaptioned the putative class action as In re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities Litigation, under the same case number. Lead plaintiff filed a conso lidated class action complaint on September 14, 2018. The consolidated class action complaint asserts similar claims against the same defendants (plus Timothy Sullivan) on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers during the Class Period. It allege s that Henry Schein’s stock price was inflated during that period because Henry Schein had misleadingly portrayed its dental-distribution business “as successfully producing excellent profits while operating in a highly competitive environment” even though , “in reality, [Henry Schein] had engaged for years in collusive and anticompetitive practices in order to maintain Schein’s margins, profits, and market share.” The complaint alleges that the stock price started to fall from August 8, 2017, when the comp any announced below-expected financial performance that allegedly “revealed that Schein’s poor results were a product of abandoning prior attempts to inflate sales volume and margins through anticompetitive collusion,” through February 13, 2018, after the FTC filed a complaint against Benco, Henry Schein and Patterson alleging that they violated U.S. antitrust laws. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. We intend to defe nd ourselves vigorously against this action. Henry Schein has also received a request under 8 Del. C. § 220 to inspect corporate books and records relating to the issues raised in the securities class action and the antitrust matters discussed above. On Ma y 3, 2018, a purported class action complaint, Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-010509, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Becton, Dickinson, and C o. (“Becton”); Premier, Inc. (“Premier”), Vizient, Inc. (“Vizient”), Cardinal Health, Inc. (“Cardinal”), Owens & Minor Inc. (“O&M”), Henry Schein, Inc., and Unnamed Becton Distributor Co-Conspirators. The complaint alleges that the defendants entered into a vertical conspiracy to force health care providers into long-term exclusionary contracts that restrain trade in the nationwide markets for conventional and safety syringes and safety IV catheters and inflate the prices of certain Becton products to abov e-competitive levels. The named plaintiffs seek to represent three separate classes consisting of all health care providers that purchased (i) Becton’s conventional syringes, (ii) Becton’s safety syringes, or (iii) Becton’s safety catheters directly from Becton, Premier, Vizient, Cardinal, O&M or Henry Schein on or after May 3, 2014. The complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief, treble damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and expenses, and pr e-judgment and post-judgment interest. On June 15, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the same allegations against the same parties and adding McKesson Medical-Surgical, Inc. as an additional defendant. On November 30, 2018, the District Cour t granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and entered a final judgment, dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. On December 27, 2018, plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. We intend to defend ou rselves vigorously against this action. On May 29, 2018, an amended complaint was filed in the MultiDistrict Litigation (“MDL”) proceeding In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804; Case No. 17-md-2804) in an action entitled The County o f Summit, Ohio et al. v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al., Civil Action No. 1:18-op-45090-DAP (“County of Summit Action”), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, adding Henry Schein, Inc., Henry Schein Medical Systems, Inc. and others as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that manufacturers of prescription opioid drugs engaged in a false advertising campaign to expand the market for such drugs and their own market share and that the entities in the supply chain (including Henry Schein, Inc. a nd Henry Schein Medical Systems, Inc.) reaped financial rewards by refusing or otherwise failing to monitor appropriately and restrict the improper distribution of those drugs. Plaintiffs assert the following claims for relief against Henry Schein, Inc. a nd Henry Schein Medical Systems, Inc.: statutory public nuisance; common law absolute public nuisance; negligence; injury through criminal acts (R.C. 2307.60); unjust enrichment; and civil conspiracy. This case has been designated “Track 1” and is curren tly set for trial on October 21, 2019. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action. In addition to the County of Summit Action, Henry Schein and/or one or more of its affiliated companies have currently been named as a defendant in mult iple lawsuits ( currently less than fifty (50) ) , which allege claims similar to those alleged in the County of Summit Action. None of these other cases have been set for trial. These actions consist of some that have been consolidated within the MDL and are currently abated for discovery purposes, and others which remain pending in state courts and are proceeding independently and outside of the MDL. Sales of opioids in North America (excluding the Henry Schein Animal Health Business) in 2018 were less t han 1 % of Henry Schein’s North American sales (excluding the Henry Schein Animal Health Business) . We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against these actions. On October 9, 2018, a purported class action complaint entitled Kramer v. Henry Schein, Inc ., Patterson Co., Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co., and Unnamed Co-Conspirators, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that members of the proposed class, comprised of purchasers of dental service s from dental practices in California, suffered antitrust injury due to an unlawful boycott, price-fixing or otherwise anticompetitive conspiracy among Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco. The complaint alleges that the alleged conspiracy overcharged Califo rnia dental practices, orthodontic practices and dental laboratories on their purchase of dental supplies, which in turn passed on some or all of such overcharges to members of the California class purchasing dental services. Subject to certain exclusions , the complaint defines the class as “all persons residing in California purchasing and/or reimbursing for dental services from California dental practices on or after August 31, 2012.” The complaint alleges violations of California antitrust laws, includi ng the Cartwright Act (Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 16720) and the Unfair Competition Act (Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200), and seeks a permanent injunction, actual damages to be determined at trial, trebled, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On December 7, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the same claims against the same parties. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action. On January 29, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed by R. Lawrence Hatchett, M.D. against Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Co., Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co., and unnamed co-conspirators in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that members of the proposed class suffered antitrust injury due to an unlawful boycott, price-fixing or otherwise anticompetitive conspiracy among Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco. The complaint alleges that the alleged conspiracy overcharged Illinois dental practices, orthodontic practices and dental laboratories on their purchase of dental supplies, which in turn passed on some or all of such overcharges to members of the class. Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as “all persons residing in Illinois pu rchasing and/or reimbursing for dental care provided by independent Illinois dental practices purchasing dental supplies from the defendants, or purchasing from buying groups purchasing these supplies from the defendants, on or after January 29, 2015.” Th e complaint alleges violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 10/3(2), 10/7(2), and seeks a permanent injunction, actual damages to be determined at trial, trebled, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment in terest. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action. From time to time, we may become a party to other legal proceedings, including, without limitation, product liability claims, employment matters, commercial disputes, governmental inquiries and investigations (which may in some cases involve our entering i nto settlement arrangements or consent decrees), and other matters arising out of the ordinary course of our business. While the results of any legal proceeding cannot be predicted with certainty, in our opinion none of these other pending matters are cur rently anticipated to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations. As of March 30, 2019, we had accrued our best estimate of potential losses relating to claims that were probable to result in liability and for which we were able to reasonably estimate a loss. This accrued amount, as well as related expenses, was not material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Our method for determining estimated losses considers c urrently available facts, presently enacted laws and regulations and other factors, including probable recoveries from third parties. |