| Legal Proceedings | Legal Proceedings From time to time, we become involved in lawsuits, administrative proceedings, government subpoenas, and government investigations (which may, in some cases, involve our entering into settlement agreements or consent decrees), relating to antitrust, commercial, environmental, product liability, intellectual property, regulatory, employment discrimination, securities, and other matters, including matters arising out of the ordinary course of business. The results of any legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty because such matters are inherently uncertain. Significant damages or penalties may be sought in some matters, and some matters may require years to resolve. We accrue for these matters when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Unless otherwise noted, with respect to the specific legal proceedings and claims described below, the amount or range or possible losses is not reasonably estimable. Adverse outcomes in some or all of these matters 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 outcome becomes probable and reasonably estimable. 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. On August 15, 2019, we announced that we had settled with SourceOne. We incurred expenses of approximately $17,666 during the first quarter of fiscal 2020 in our Corporate segment to account for the settlement of this matter. 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, subject to court approval, a full and final settlement of the lawsuit on a class-wide basis. Subject to certain exceptions, the settlement class consists of all persons or entities that purchased dental products directly from Henry Schein, Patterson, Benco and Burkhart, or any combination thereof, during the period August 31, 2008 through and including March 31, 2016. Under the terms of the settlement, we paid $28,263 into escrow upon preliminary court approval. Such funds are to be released to the settlement fund administrator upon final court approval of the settlement, which was granted at the fairness hearing held on June 24, 2019. We recorded a pre-tax reserve of $28,263 in our first quarter 2019 results in our Corporate segment to account for the settlement of this matter. On July 16, 2019, objector William Roe filed a notice of appeal of the final order, contesting the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded to class counsel out of the settlement fund. On October 24, 2019, the U.S. District Court approved a settlement between the objector and the plaintiffs that served to resolve the objection. 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. 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 U.S. 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 Supreme Court heard oral arguments. On January 8, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its published decision vacating the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings on a second arbitration issue consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. The Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments on May 1, 2019. On August 14, 2019, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s finding that the arbitration provision does not apply to this litigation. Trial is scheduled to begin on February 3, 2020. 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 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, 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 appealed the District Court’s order. On May 10, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of IQ Dental's claims that it was injured by an alleged boycott of SourceOne but reversed the District Court on dismissal of IQ Dental's direct boycott claims. The case was remanded to the District Court to proceed in accordance with that opinion. 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 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. The hearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge of the FTC (the “ALJ”) in Washington, D.C. began on October 16, 2018. The factual record closed on February 21, 2019 and post-trial briefing ended on June 6, 2019. On October 16, 2019, the ALJ announced his initial decision, recommending that Patterson and Benco violated FTC Act Section 5 in 2013 by conspiring to refuse to provide discounts to, or otherwise serve, buying groups representing dental practitioners. Following this initial decision, the Bureau of Competition (the “Bureau”) reached out to Patterson and offered to settle the matter, and on October 18, 2019, the parties agreed to a settlement. As a result of the settlement, Patterson and the Bureau agreed not to appeal the initial decision of the ALJ and Patterson agreed to abide by the terms of the ALJ’s proposed remedial order, which did not impose any monetary fine on the company or require an outside monitor. While we disagreed with the ALJ’s findings, and believed we had meritorious grounds to appeal the initial decision, we determined that, for business reasons including avoiding further cost and burden, a settlement was in our best interest. 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. On January 18, 2019, Patterson and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 25, 2019, the U.S Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that the motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. The report and recommendation, among other things, recommends the dismissal of all claims against individuals defendants Ann B. Gugino, R. Stephen Armstrong and James W. Wiltz. On September 10, 2019, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. 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, and responded to, 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 (“USAO-WDVA”) informed us that our subsidiary, Animal Health International, Inc., had been designated a target of a criminal investigation. The investigation originally related to Animal Health International’s 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 law. After being contacted by the USAO-WDVA, Patterson retained outside legal counsel and began an internal investigation. Since that time, we produced documents both responsive to grand jury subpoenas and voluntarily. In December 2018, as a result of our internal investigation, we voluntarily advised the USAO-WDVA that some of Animal Health International’s shipments of prescription animal health products were made from a warehouse rather than a pharmacy to end-user customers in the states of Virginia and Tennessee. Thereafter, as part of our internal investigation, we conducted a comprehensive review of Animal Health International’s distribution and licensing practices across all 50 U.S. states. That review identified compliance issues in additional states, which we voluntarily disclosed to the USAO-WDVA in April 2019. Our Board of Directors established a special investigation committee to oversee and conduct the investigation, to review our licensing, dispensing, distribution and related sales practices company-wide, and to report on its findings to the Board and to the USAO-WDVA. As a result of the internal investigation, we modified our licensing, dispensing, distribution and related sales processes company-wide. We recently reached an agreement in principle with the USAO-WDVA which we understand will resolve the federal government’s criminal investigation into Animal Health International and other non-compliant licensing, dispensing, distribution and related sales processes disclosed during the investigation. The agreement in principle is subject to negotiation of final terms, approval by all necessary parties, execution of definitive documents and court approval. Under the terms of the agreement in principle, Animal Health International will pay a total criminal fine and forfeiture of $52,800 and Animal Health International will plead guilty to a one-count information charging it with a strict-liability misdemeanor offense under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in connection with its failure to comply with federal law relating to the sales of prescription animal health products. In addition, Animal Health International and Patterson will enter into a non-prosecution agreement for other non-compliant licensing, dispensing, distribution and related sales processes disclosed during the investigation and will commit to undertake additional compliance program enhancements and may include other terms that are the subject of ongoing negotiations. Upon reaching this agreement in principle, we recorded a reserve of $58,300 in our Corporate segment for the three and six months ended October 26, 2019 to account for the anticipated settlement of this matter and certain related costs and expenses. This matter may continue to divert management’s attention and cause us to suffer reputational harm. We also may be subject to other fines or penalties, equitable remedies (including but not limited to the suspension, revocation or non-renewal of licenses) and litigation. The occurrence of any of these events could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. 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.” On February 19, 2019, the Hennepin County District Court ordered this litigation stayed pending resolution of the below-described case brought by Sally Pemberton. On September 10, 2019, the Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz dismissed Pemberton without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to make a pre-suit demand on Patterson’s Board of Directors. On November 5, 2019, the defendants in Johnsen moved to dismiss such action based on plaintiff’s failure to make a pre-suit demand or otherwise properly plead demand futility. 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 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in a case captioned Sally Pemberton v. Scott P. Anderson, et al ., Case No. 18-CV-2818 (PJS/HB). 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.” On September 10, 2019, the Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz dismissed this action without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to make a pre-suit demand on Patterson’s Board of Directors. On October 31, 2019, Patterson’s Board of Directors received a written demand to initiate litigation against its officers and directors based on the claims the plaintiff originally presented in her complaint. The Board is reviewing such demand and determining the steps it plans to take to address it. 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 U.S. 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. On December 7, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the same claims against the same parties. On June 28, 2019, the District Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss with leave to amend. The parties have stipulated to dismissal of the named plaintiff’s action with prejudice, pursuant to an August 5, 2019 settlement following the named plaintiff’s decision to abandon its efforts to represent the purported class, and we agreed to pay the individual named plaintiff a de minimis amount. On January 29, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed by R. Lawrence Hatchett, M.D. against Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein, Inc., Benco Dental Supply Company, 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 Schein, Benco and Patterson. 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. While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we believe that the indirect purchaser action is without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this litigation. In December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous cases filed against an array of defendants by various plaintiffs such as counties, cities, hospitals, Indian tribes and others, alleging claims generally concerning the impacts of widespread opioid abuse. The consolidated multidistrict litigation, captioned In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation , MDL No. 2804 (the “MDL”), is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On July 12, 2018, Bon Secours Health System, Inc., Bon Secours- Richmond Community Hospital, Incorporated, Bon Secours DePaul Medical Center, Inc., Bon Secours- Memorial Regional Medical Center, Inc., Bon Secours- St. Francis Medical Center, Inc., Bon Secours- St. Mary’s Hospital of Richmond, Inc., Bon Secours- Virginia Healthsource, Inc., Chesapeake Hospital Corporation, Mary Immaculate Hospital, Incorporated and Maryview Hospital (collectively, the “MDL Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the MDL against 26 manufacturers and wholesale distributors of prescription opiates (the “MDL Defendants”) alleging that the MDL Defendants improperly marketed, sold or distributed prescription opiates. The MDL Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges violations of federal RICO statutes, violations of the Virginia Consumer Protections Act, negligence, negligence per se, wantonness, recklessness, and gross negligence, fraud and public nuisance. The MDL Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, the imposition of civil penalties, monetary damages, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees and costs. Neither Patterson nor any of its subsidiaries were named as MDL Defendants in the original complaint. On March 15, 2019, the MDL Plaintiffs amended and supplemented their complaint to assert violations of federal RICO statutes against 67 manufacturers and wholesale distributors of prescription opiates (the “Amended MDL Defendants”). Two of Patterson’s subsidiaries, Patterson Logistics Services, Inc. and Patterson Veterinary Supply, Inc., are named as Amended MDL Defendants. The MDL Plaintiffs allege that the Amended MDL Defendants “breached their legal duties under federal law to monitor, detect, investigate, refuse and report suspicious orders of prescription opiates.” While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we believe that the MDL Plaintiffs’ claims against Patterson Logistics Services, Inc. and Patterson Veterinary Supply, Inc. are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this litigation. |
