| Legal Proceedings | Legal Proceedings In September 2015, we were served with a summons and complaint in an action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled SourceOne Dental, Inc. v. Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein, Inc. and Benco Dental Supply Company, Civil Action No. 15-cv-05440-JMA-GRB. SourceOne, as plaintiff, alleges that, through its website, it markets and sells dental supplies and equipment to dentists. SourceOne alleges in the complaint, among other things, that we, along with the defendants Henry Schein and Benco, conspired to eliminate plaintiff as a competitor and to exclude them from the market for the marketing, distribution and sale of dental supplies and equipment in the U.S. and that defendants unlawfully agreed with one another to boycott dentists, manufacturers, and state dental associations that deal with, or considered dealing with, plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts the following claims: (i) unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of state and federal antitrust laws; (ii) tortious interference with prospective business relations; (iii) civil conspiracy; and (iv) aiding and abetting the other defendants’ ongoing tortious and anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally, punitive damages, interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees. In June 2017, Henry Schein settled with SourceOne and was dismissed from this litigation with prejudice. We are vigorously defending ourselves in this litigation. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial statements. Beginning in January 2016, purported antitrust class action complaints were filed against defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Benco Dental Supply Company and Patterson Companies, Inc. Although there were factual and legal variations among these complaints, each alleged that defendants conspired to foreclose and exclude 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. Subject to certain exclusions, the putative class representatives seek to represent all persons who purchased dental supplies or equipment in the U.S. directly from any of the defendants, since August 31, 2008. 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. 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, interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees. While we continue to believe such claims are without merit, we do not admit to any liability, and there has been no finding of any violation of law, we entered into settlement discussions with the named plaintiffs in August 2018, and anticipate entering into a definitive settlement agreement, based upon our desire to avoid the time, expense, distraction and inherent uncertainty of litigation. Based upon such discussions, although we have not yet entered into a definitive settlement agreement and any such settlement agreement would be subject to preliminary and final court approval, we currently estimate that the cost of resolving the claims in this litigation will be $28,263 , and have recorded a legal settlement reserve in such amount for the quarter ended July 28, 2018 in our Corporate segment. 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 United States 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. and Benco Dental Supply Company as defendants, and alleging that Henry Schein, Patterson, Benco and non-defendant Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc. conspired to pressure and agreed to enlist their common suppliers, including the Danaher Defendants, to join a price-fixing conspiracy and boycott by reducing the distribution territory of, and eventually terminating, Archer. Archer seeks injunctive relief, and damages in an amount to be proved at trial, to be trebled with interest and costs, including attorneys’ fees, jointly and severally. On June 25, 2018, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review an arbitration issue raised by the Danaher Defendants, thereby continuing the case stay implemented in March 2018. We are vigorously defending ourselves in this litigation. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial statements. On August 17, 2017, IQ Dental Supply, Inc. (“IQ Dental”) filed a complaint in the United States 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, Inc. 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 defendants motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff has appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. We are vigorously defending ourselves in this litigation. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial statements. On February 12, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued an administrative complaint entitled In the Matter of Benco Dental Supply Co., Henry Schein, Inc., and Patterson Companies, Inc. Docket No. 9379. The administrative complaint alleges “reason to believe” that Patterson and the other respondents violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 by conspiring to refuse to offer discounted prices or otherwise negotiate with buying groups seeking to obtain supply agreements on behalf of groups of solo practitioners or small group dental practices. The administrative complaint seeks injunctive relief against Patterson, including an order to cease and desist from the conduct alleged in the complaint and a prohibition from conspiring or agreeing with any competitor or any person to refuse to provide discounts to or compete for the business of any customer. No money damages are sought. We are vigorously defending ourselves against the administrative complaint. The administrative complaint provides notice of an October 16, 2018 hearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge of the FTC in Washington, D.C. We do not anticipate this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial statements. On March 28, 2018, Plymouth County Retirement System (“Plymouth”) filed a federal securities class action complaint against Patterson and its former CEO Scott P. Anderson and former CFO Ann B. Gugino (together, the “Individual Defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino , Case No. 0:18-cv-00871 MJD/SER. On behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Patterson’s common stock between June 26, 2015 and February 28, 2018, Plymouth alleges that Patterson violated federal securities laws by “fail[ing] to disclose that [Patterson’s] revenue and earnings were fraudulently inflated by an illegal and fraudulent price-fixing scheme aimed at prohibiting sales to and price negotiations by GPOs [group purchasing organizations] that represented small and independent dental practices.” We vehemently deny these allegations. In its class action complaint, Plymouth asserts one count against Patterson for violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a second, related count against the Individual Defendants for violating Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plymouth seeks compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorneys’ fees and experts’ witness fees and costs. On August 30, 2018, Gwinnett County Public Employees Retirement System and Plymouth County Retirement System, Pembroke Pines Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, Central Laborers Pension Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs. While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we believe that the class action complaint is without merit, and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this litigation. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial statements. During the first quarter of fiscal 2019, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia informed us that our subsidiary, Animal Health International, Inc., has been designated a target of a criminal investigation. The main focus of the investigation to date and the alleged relationships at issue occurred prior to our acquisition of Animal Health International in June 2015 and relate to legacy Animal Health International sales of prescription animal health products to certain persons and/or locations not licensed to receive them in Virginia and Tennessee in violation of federal and state laws. In August 2018, we agreed to enter into a tolling agreement effective for three months to allow us to produce documents responsive to grand jury subpoenas and to allow for further evaluation of evidence. We also are conducting an internal investigation and are cooperating with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. At this time, we are unable to make an estimate of the amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that we could incur as a result of the foregoing matter. On August 28, 2018, Kirsten Johnsen filed a stockholder derivative complaint against Patterson, as a nominal defendant, and the following former and current officers and directors of Patterson: Scott Anderson, Ann Gugino, James Wiltz, John Buck, Jody Feragen, Ellen Rudnick, Les Vinney, Neil Schrimsher, Sarena Lin, Harold Slavkin, Alex Blanco and Mark Walchirk (the “Individual Defendants”) in Hennepin County District Court in a case captioned Kirsten Johnsen v. Scott P. Anderson et al. , Case No. 27-CV-18-14315. Derivatively on behalf of Patterson, plaintiff alleges that Patterson “suppressed price competition and maintained supracompetitive prices for dental supplies and equipment by entering into agreements with Henry Schein and Benco to: (i) fix margins for dental supplies and equipment; and (ii) block the entry and expansion of lower-margin, lower-priced, rival dental distributors through threatened and actual group boycotts.” Plaintiff further alleges that the Individual Defendants failed to disclose Patterson’s alleged “price-fixing scheme” to the public and purportedly “caused Patterson to repurchase over $412,800 worth of its own stock at artificially inflated prices.” We vehemently deny these allegations. In the derivative complaint, plaintiff asserts three counts against the Individual Defendants for: (i) breach of fiduciary duty; (ii) waste of corporate assets; and (iii) unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, equitable and injunctive relief as permitted by law, costs, disbursements and reasonable attorneys’ fees, accountants’ fees and experts’ fees, costs and expenses, and an order awarding restitution from the Individual Defendants and directing Patterson “to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures.” While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we believe that the derivative complaint is without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this litigation. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial statements. From time to time, we may become a party to other legal proceedings, including, without limitation, product liability claims, intellectual property 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 is anticipated to have a material adverse effect on our financial statements. |
