| Legal Proceedings | Note 18 – Legal Proceedings 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 a conspiracy 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 Companies, Inc. (“Patterson”) and Benco Dental Supply Co. (“Benco”) as defendants, and alleging that Henry Schein, Patterson, Benco and Burkhart Dental Supply 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 denied that petition. On October 1, 2019, the District Court set the case for trial on February 3, 2020, which was subsequently moved to January 29, 2020. On January 24, 2020 the Supreme Court granted our motion to stay the District Court proceedings, pending the disposition of our petition for writ of certiorari, which was filed on January 31, 2020. Archer conditionally cross petitioned for certiorari on an arbitration issue on March 2, 2020. On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court granted our petition for writ of certiorari, and denied Archer’s conditional petition for certiorari, and thus the District Court proceedings remain stayed. Patterson and the Danaher Defendants settled with Archer and they have been dismissed from the case with prejudice. Benco is still a defendant and filed a notice of joinder in Henry Schein’s motion to compel arbitration with the District Court. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action. 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, thereby causing the plaintiff and members of the purported class to pay artificially inflated prices for Henry Schein securities. Those alleged statements included matters relating to the issues in the In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, which Henry Schein settled and which the court dismissed in June 2019, and in the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) administrative proceeding, in which an administrative law judge ruled in Henry Schein’s favor in October 2019 after a trial, as described in our prior filings with the SEC. 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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (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. The court also dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against Henry Schein to the extent that it relied 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. Henry Schein and Mr. Sullivan moved for partial reconsideration of the court’s decision. Pursuant to all parties’ request, the court temporarily took the motion off the calendar after it was fully briefed. The parties later agreed to resolve this matter in exchange for a cash payment of $ 35 million, which will be covered by the Company’s insurance and will have no earnings impact to the Company. The proposed settlement is subject to various conditions, including court approval. The Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement on May 5, 2020 and has scheduled a fairness hearing for September 16, 2020. 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 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 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. On March 5, 2020, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege the necessary conspiracy by the defendants, but should be provided an opportunity to amend their complaint. The Seventh Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Plaintiffs’ counsel have indicated that they intend to amend their complaint. 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, donated $ 1 million to a foundation and paid $ 250,000 of Summit County’s expenses, as described in our prior filing with the SEC. 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 and fifty ( 150)), which allege claims similar to those alleged in the County of Summit Action. At this time, the only cases set for trial are the action filed by Tucson Medical Center et al., which is currently scheduled for a 30-day trial beginning on June 1, 2021, and the action filed by West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. et al., which is currently scheduled for a non-jury liability trial on Plaintiffs’ public nuisance claims on March 22, 2021. 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 2019 revenue of approximately $ 10 billion from continuing operations, sales of opioids represented less than one-tenth of 1 percent On September 30, 2019, the 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. Pursuant to the provisions of the PSLRA, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on December 23, 2019. Lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on February 21, 2020. Lead plaintiff added Steve Paladino, our Chief Financial Officer, as a defendant in the action. Lead plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 21, 2020, in which it added a claim that Mr. Paladino is a “control person” of Covetrus. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action. On November 15, 2019, Frank Finazzo filed a putative shareholder derivative action on behalf of Henry Schein, Inc. against various present and former directors and officers of Henry Schein in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 1:19-cv-6485-LDH-JO. The named defendants in the action are Stanley M. Bergman, Steven Paladino, Timothy J. Sullivan, Barry J. Alperin, Lawrence S. Bacow, Gerald A. Benjamin, James P. Breslawski, Paul Brons, Shira Goodman, Joseph L. Herring, Donald J. Kabat, Kurt Kuehn, Philip A. Laskawy, Anne H. Margulies, Karyn Mashima, Norman S. Matthews, Mark E. Mlotek, Carol Raphael, E. Dianne Rekow, Bradley T. Sheares, and Louis W. Sullivan, with Henry Schein named as a nominal defendant. The Complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws and state law relating to the allegations in the antitrust actions, the In re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities Litigation, and the City of Hollywood securities class action described above. The complaint seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief on behalf of Henry Schein. On January 6, 2020, counsel who filed the Finazzo case filed another, virtually identical putative shareholder derivative action on behalf of Henry Schein against the same defendants, asserting the same claims and seeking the same relief. That case, captioned Mark Sloan v. Stanley M. Bergman, et al., is also pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-0076. On January 24, 2020, the court consolidated the Finazzo and Sloan cases under the new caption In re Henry Schein, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-06485-LDH-JO, and appointed the counsel in these cases as co-lead counsel for the consolidated action. The parties agreed to a resolution of this matter subject to various conditions, including court approval. The contemplated settlement, if finally approved, would involve the adoption of certain procedures but would not involve the payment of any money except a fee to the plaintiffs’ attorneys that is immaterial. The Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement on June 10, 2020, and has scheduled a fairness hearing for September 22, 2020. 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 June 27, 2020, 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. |
