| 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. Trial is scheduled to begin on April 29, 2019. 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 private dental practices and laboratories who purchased dental supplies or equipment in the U.S. directly from any of the defendants, during the period beginning August 31, 2008 until March 31, 2016. 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. On September 28, 2018, the parties executed a settlement agreement that proposes a full and final settlement of the lawsuit on a class-wide basis, subject to court approval. Related to this settlement, we recorded a charge of $28,263 in our first quarter 2019 results 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. On October 29, 2018, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument. The United States Supreme Court’s decision is pending. 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 the District Court’s order. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on September 13, 2018. The court’s decision is pending. 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 hearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge of the FTC in Washington, D.C. began on October 16, 2018 and is ongoing. 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 Companies, Inc. and its former CEO Scott P. Anderson and former CFO Ann B. Gugino 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 November 9, 2018, the complaint was amended to add former CEO James W. Wiltz and former CFO R. Stephen Armstrong as individual defendants. Under the amended complaint, on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Patterson’s common stock between June 26, 2013 and February 28, 2018, Plymouth alleges that Patterson violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that Patterson’s revenue and earnings were “artificially inflated by Defendants’ illicit, anti-competitive scheme with its purported competitors, Benco and Schein, to prevent the formation of buying groups that would allow its customers who were office-based practitioners to take advantage of pricing arrangements identical or comparable to those enjoyed by large-group customers.” 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. Patterson has also received requests under Minnesota Business Corporation Act § 302A.461 to inspect corporate books and records relating to the issues raised in the securities class action and the antitrust matters discussed above. 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 October 2018, we entered 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 Companies, Inc., 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 as 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.” 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. On October 1, 2018, Sally Pemberton filed a stockholder derivative complaint against Patterson Companies, Inc., as a nominal defendant, and the following former and current officers and directors of Patterson: Scott Anderson, Ann Gugino, Mark Walchirk, John Buck, Alex Blanco, Jody Feragen, Sarena Lin, Ellen Rudnick, Neil Schrimsher, Les Vinney, James Wiltz, Paul Guggenheim, David Misiak and Tim Rogan as individual defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in a case captioned Sally Pemberton v. Scott P. Anderson, et al ., Case No. 18-CV-2818. Derivatively on behalf of Patterson, plaintiff alleges that Patterson, with Benco and Henry Schein, “engage[d] in a conspiracy in restraint of trade, whereby the companies agreed to refuse to offer discounted prices or otherwise negotiate with GPOs, agreed to fix margins on dental supplies and equipment, agreed not to poach one another’s customers or sales representatives, and agreed to block the entry and expansion of rival distributors. Plaintiff further alleges that the individual defendants failed to disclose Patterson’s alleged “antitrust misconduct” to the public and purportedly caused Patterson to repurchase $412,800 of its own stock at prices that were artificially inflated. In the derivative complaint, plaintiff asserts six counts against the individual defendants for: (i) breach of fiduciary duty; (ii) waste of corporate assets; (iii) unjust enrichment; (iv) violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act; (v) violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and (vi) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, disbursements and reasonable attorneys’ fees, 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. On October 9, 2018, Nathaniel Kramer filed indirect purchaser litigation against Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein, Inc. and Benco Dental Supply Company in the United States District Court for the District of Northern District of California. The purported class action complaint asserts violations of the California Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition Act based on an alleged agreement between Schein, Benco, and Patterson (and unnamed co-conspirators) not to compete as to price and margins. Plaintiff alleges that the agreement allowed the defendants to charge higher prices to dental practices for dental supplies and that the dental practices passed on all, or part of, the increased prices to the consumers of 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. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction, actual damages to be determined at trial, trebled, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. 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. While management currently believes that resolving all of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial statements, the litigation and other claims noted above are subject to inherent uncertainties and management’s view of these matters may change in the future. Adverse outcomes in some or all of the claims pending against us may result in significant monetary damages or injunctive relief against us that could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business. There also exists the possibility of a material adverse effect on our financial statements for the period in which the effect of an unfavorable final outcome becomes probable and reasonably estimable. 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. |
