Litigation

12 Months Ended

Apr. 25, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Litigation

Litigation

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.

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. On January 15, 2020, we reached an agreement in principle to settle with Archer. On March 23, 2020, we settled with Archer and the action against Patterson was dismissed on March 31, 2020.

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 complaint and certain antitrust litigation.

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 reached an agreement with the USAO-WDVA that resolved 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. Under the terms of the agreement, Animal Health International paid a total criminal fine and forfeiture of $52,800 in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020, and Animal Health International pleaded guilty to 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 entered into a non-prosecution agreement for other non-compliant licensing, dispensing, distribution and related sales processes disclosed during the investigation and committed to undertake additional compliance program enhancements and provide compliance certifications for the period from the date of signing the non-prosecution agreement through the next three full fiscal years. The sentencing hearing took place on May 4, 2020, and the court entered a one-year probation period for Animal Health International. 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 then-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 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 received a written demand to initiate litigation against its officers and directors based on the claims Ms. Pemberton originally presented in her complaint. Following this demand, and after consultation with legal counsel, effective March 16, 2020, the Board adopted a resolution appointing Professor John Matheson and The Honorable George McGunnigle, retired Judge of Hennepin County District Court, as a special litigation committee pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 302A.241. Pursuant to the resolution, the special litigation committee has complete power and authority to investigate the demand, analyze the legal rights or remedies of Patterson, determine whether those rights or remedies should be pursued, and respond to Ms. Pemberton on behalf of Patterson.

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 above-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. On December 12, 2019, in light of the outcome in Pemberton, the defendants and Johnsen entered into a stipulation for voluntary dismissal of the Johnsen action, which the court granted on December 13, 2019. On April 27, 2020, Patterson’s Board received a written demand to initiate litigation against its officers and directors based on the claims Ms. Johnsen originally presented in her complaint. The Board is in the process of reviewing the demand and determining how to address it.