| 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 against 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 Nelson, 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 Dental 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. 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 period 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 June 25, 2019, the district court granted final approval to the settlement, and entered final judgment dismissing the case. On July 16, 2019, Dr. William Roe, an unnamed class member that had objected to the settlement, filed a notice of appeal appealing the district court’s Final Judgment and Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement. On October 8, 2019, the class plaintiffs and the objector filed notice indicating that they had reached a settlement concerning the objection, which, once approved by the court, would resolve the objection. On October 24, 2019 the court approved the agreement between the objector and the plaintiffs. On August 31, 2012, Archer and White Sales, Inc. (“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 aconspiracy 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, Patterson, 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 boycott 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 amended 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 motion 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. On April 2, 2019, the District Court stayed the proceeding in the trial court pending resolution by the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit heard oral argument on May 1, 2019 on whether the case should be arbitrated. The Fifth Circuit issued its opinion on August 14, 2019 affirming the District Court’s order denying defendants’ motions to compel arbitration. Defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc before the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit has not ruled on that petition. On October 1, 2019, the District Court set the case for trial on February 3, 2020. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action. On August 17, 2017, IQ Dental Supply, Inc. (“IQ Dental”) filed 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 distributor 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, which 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, distribution 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 SourceOne. 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 interference 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 expert 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. On May 10, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court’s dismissal of the Complaint, holding that IQ Dental lacks antitrust standing to challenge the alleged boycott of SourceOne and state dental associations, but that it has standing to challenge injury related to the alleged direct boycott of its business. On June 29, 2019, the Second Circuit denied IQ Dental’s petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. Proceedings in the District Court are ongoing. 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 practitioners. 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 otherwise 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. On October 7, 2019, the administrative law judge issued his Initial Decision, finding in relevant part that the “evidence fails to prove a conspiracy involving Schein,” and dismissing the Complaint as to Schein. The Initial Decision will become the decision of the Commission on or about November 7, 2019 unless the Commission places the case on its own docket for review or stays the effective date of the decision. 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, thereby 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 Litigation 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 consolidated 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 alleges 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 company 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. On September 27, 2019, the court issued a decision partially granting and partially denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the securities action. The court dismissed all claims against Messrs. Bergman and Paladino as well as the Section 10(b) claim against Henry Schein to the extent that that claim relied on the Company’s financial results and margins to allege a material misstatement or omission, and on the Company’s August 8, 2017 disclosure to allege loss causation. The court otherwise denied the motion as to Henry Schein and Mr. Sullivan. We intend to defend 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 May 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 Co. (“Becton”); Premier, Inc. (“Premier”), Vizient, Inc. (“Vizient”), Cardinal Health, Inc. (“Cardinal”), Owens & Minor Inc. (“O&M”), Henry Schein, Inc., and Unnamed Becton DistributorCo-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 above-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 pre-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 a defendant. On November 30, 2018, the District Court 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. The parties argued the appeal on September 27, 2019 and are currently awaiting the Seventh Circuit’s ruling. 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 of 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. Summit County alleges 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. and Henry Schein Medical Systems, Inc.) reaped financial rewards by refusing or otherwise failing to monitor appropriately and restrict the improper distribution of those drugs. On October 29, 2019, the Company was dismissed with prejudice from this lawsuit. Henry Schein, working with Summit County, will establish and donate $ 1 million to a Pain Management Education Foundation dedicated to making grants to programs within Summit County focused on (I) supporting and aggregating research around best practices for pain management, including the prescription of opioids and alternatives: (II) educating dentists and physicians, clinical associates, patients and patient networks on those best practices along with the risks of opioid addiction and alternative pain management treatment options for key indications; and (III) offering grants to develop and offer training to dentists and physicians or other qualified professionals to qualify a practitioner for a waiver to prescribe or dispense buprenorphine medications. Henry Schein will pay $ 250,000 of Summit County’s expenses. 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 multiple lawsuits (currently less than one-hundred ( 100)), 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. Of Henry Schein’s 2018 revenue of $ 9.4 billion from continuing operations, sales of opioids represented less than one-tenth of 1 percent 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 services 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 California 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, including 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. On June 28, 2019, the court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss with leave to amend. The parties subsequently stipulated to dismissal of the action with prejudice, pursuant to a settlement in which Henry Schein agreed to pay the plaintiff a de minimis amount. The court entered the stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and terminated the case on August 2, 2019. 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 purchasing 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.” The 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 interest. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action. On September 30, 2019, City of Hollywood Police Officers Retirement System, 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., Covetrus, Inc., and Benjamin Shaw and Christine Komola (Covetrus’s then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 2:19-cv-05530-FB-RLM. The complaint seeks to certify a class consisting of all persons and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased or otherwise acquired Covetrus common stock from February 8, 2019 through August 12, 2019. The case relates to the Animal Health Spin-off and Merger of the Henry Schein Animal Health Business with Vets First Choice in February 2019. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and asserts that defendants’ statements in the offering documents and after the transaction were materially false and misleading because they purportedly overstated Covetrus’s capabilities as to inventory management and supply-chain services, understated the costs of integrating the Henry Schein Animal Health Business and Vets First Choice, understated Covetrus’s separation costs from Henry Schein, and understated the impact on earnings from online competition and alternative distribution channels and from the loss of an allegedly large customer in North America just before the Separation and Merger. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial. 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 into 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 currently anticipated to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations. As of September 28, 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 currently available facts, presently enacted laws and regulations and other factors, including probable recoveries from third parties. |
