| | |
PATTERSON COMPANIES | 1031 Mendota Heights Road | Saint Paul, MN 55120 | | NEWS RELEASE |
Internal sales increased 4.2 percent compared to the fiscal 2019 second quarter.
Balance Sheet and Capital Allocation
During the first six months of fiscal 2020 Patterson Companies used $14.7 million of cash from operating activities and collected deferred purchase price receivables of $212.3 million, netting $197.7 million in cash, compared to a total of $365.8 million in the first six months of fiscal 2019. However, the previous year contained the initiation of the trade accounts receivable facility in the amount of $171.0 million. On an adjusted free cash flow1basis, cash generatedyear-to-date in fiscal 2020 is $2.1 million higher than the year ago period.
In the second quarter of fiscal 2020, Patterson Companies paid $25.0 million in cash dividends to shareholders. On ayear-to-date basis, Patterson has returned $50.5 million in cash dividends to shareholders.
Year-to-Date Results
Consolidated reported net sales for the first six months of fiscal 2020 totaled $2.75 billion, a 0.2 percent year-over-year increase. Internal sales have increased 1.2 percent compared to the first six months of fiscal 2019. Reported net loss attributable to Patterson Companies, Inc. was $3.1 million, or $0.03 per diluted share, compared to net income attributable to Patterson Companies, Inc. of $24.4 million, or $0.26 per diluted share in last year’s period. The year-over-year decline is attributable to the increase in legal reserves, partially offset by an investment gain. Adjusted net income1 attributable to Patterson Companies, Inc., which excludes deal amortization costs, integration and business restructuring costs, legal reserve expenses, accelerated debt issuance costs and an investment gain, totaled $62.0 million, or $0.65 per diluted share, compared to adjusted net income attributable to Patterson Companies, Inc. of $60.3 million, or $0.65 per diluted share, in theyear-ago period.
Legal Updates
Patterson recently reached an agreement in principle with the USAO-WDVA that the Company understands will resolve the government’s investigation into Animal Health International’s sales of prescription animal health products to certain persons and/or locations not licensed to receive them, and othernon-compliant licensing, dispensing, distribution and related sales processes disclosed by the Company during the investigation. Patterson continues to cooperate fully with the government, in addition to conducting its own internal, company-wide investigation into licensing, dispensing, distribution and related sales practices and shared its findings with the government. Patterson’s investigation resulted in modifications of the Company’s processes that are designed to drive compliance with relevant regulations.
Under the terms of the agreement in principle with the USAO-WDVA, Patterson’s subsidiary, Animal Health International, Inc., will pay a total fine and forfeiture of $52.8 million and plead guilty to a strict-liability misdemeanor offense under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in connection with the failure to comply with federal law relating to the sales of prescription animal health products. In addition, Patterson and Animal Health International will enter into aNon-Prosecution Agreement. The agreement in principle with the USAO-WDVA is subject to negotiation of final terms, approval by all necessary parties, execution of definitive documents, and court approval. Upon reaching this agreement in principle with the USAO-WDVA, Patterson recorded a reserve of $58.3 million in its 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.
As previously announced in November 2019, Patterson reached a settlement agreement with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) regarding an administrative complaint filed by the FTC concerning alleged conduct in 2013 related to the company’s willingness to negotiate with “buying groups.” Patterson continues to categorically deny any wrongdoing, but for business reasons, determined that a settlement is in its best interest, and allows the company to avoid further costs, distraction and uncertainty. As a result of the settlement, Patterson and the FTC agreed not to appeal the initial recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge (“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. As part of the settlement, Patterson agreed to maintain its ongoing personnel training on antitrust laws and to continue making independent decisions with regard to “buying groups.”
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d6c6a/d6c6a1daa0f44be3cf5bae3470f5cf5e6290ba7a" alt="LOGO"