Legal Proceedings | Note 17 – 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 alleged 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 sought 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 were 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 remained stayed. After briefing from the parties and several amici, the case was argued before the Supreme Court on December 8, 2020. On January 25, 2021, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. That action dissolved the stay the Supreme Court had previously granted. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas then set the case for trial, and jury selection was scheduled to begin on June 1, 2021. Patterson and the Danaher Defendants settled with Archer and they have been dismissed from the case with prejudice. Benco settled the case with the plaintiff. Henry Schein and the plaintiff settled this matter for an amount that is not material to the Company. The court dismissed the case with prejudice on May 25, 2021. On May 29, 2018 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 alleged 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 filings with the SEC. In addition to the County of Summit Action, Henry Schein and/or one or more of its affiliated companies have 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. 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. On October 9, 2020, the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Case No. CACE19018882, granted Henry Schein’s motion to dismiss the claims brought against it in the action filed by North Broward Hospital District et. al. The Florida court gave plaintiffs until November 24, 2020 to replead their claims against Henry Schein. On January 8, 2021, Henry Schein filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. By Order entered on March 24, 2021, the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas, Case No. 72-CV20-156, granted Henry Schein’s motion to dismiss the claims brought against it in the action filed by Fayetteville Arkansas Hospital Company, LLC, et al. The Arkansas plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 29, 2021and did not name Henry Schein as a defendant. An action filed by Tucson Medical Center et al. was previously scheduled for trial beginning on June 1, 2021 but the court has vacated that trial date. At this time, the only cases set for trial are the actions 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 November 1, 2021, and DCH Health Care Authority, et al., which is currently scheduled for a liability jury trial on plaintiffs’ public nuisance claims on July 18, 2022. Of Henry Schein’s 2020 revenue of approximately $ 10.1 billion from continuing operations, sales of opioids represented less than one-tenth of 1 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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 and asserts that defendants’ statements in the offering documents and after the transaction were materially false and misleading On February 5, 2021 Jack Garnsey filed a putative shareholder derivative action on behalf of Covetrus, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, naming as defendants Benjamin Shaw, Christine T. Komola, Steven Paladino, Betsy Atkins, Deborah G. Ellinger, Sandra L. Helton, Philip A. Laskaway, Mark J. Manoff, Edward M. McNamara, Ravi Sachdev, David E. Shaw, Benjamin Wolin, and Henry Schein, Inc., with Covetrus, Inc. named as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties under state law in connection with the same allegations asserted in the City of Hollywood securities class action described above and further alleges that Henry Schein aided and abetted such breaches. The complaint also asserts claims for contribution under the federal securities laws against Henry Schein and other defendants, also arising out of the allegations in the City of Hollywood lawsuit. The complaint seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action. On April 8, 2021 the Court entered an order staying the Garnsey action until forty-five ( 45) days after a decision is issued finally resolving the motions to dismiss in the City of Hollywood Class 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 June 26, 2021, 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. |