Litigation

12 Months Ended

Apr. 30, 2022

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 such 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 also may be subject to fines or penalties, and equitable remedies (including but not limited to the suspension, revocation or non-renewal of licenses).

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 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 individual 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. On September 28, 2020, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class, appoint class representatives and appoint class counsel. On October 12, 2020, Patterson and the remaining individual defendant, Mr. Anderson, filed a Rule 23(f) petition for interlocutory appeal of the class certification order with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in which the defendants sought clarification of the standard for rebutting the Basic presumption of class-wide reliance in securities class actions. On October 13, 2020, Patterson and Mr. Anderson filed a motion to stay the underlying proceeding with the District Court pending the possibility of interlocutory appeal. On November 9, 2020, the District Court denied defendants’ motion to stay and on November 12, 2020, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied defendants’ Rule 23(f) petition. On May 17, 2021, Patterson and Mr. Anderson filed a motion for

summary judgment and a motion to exclude plaintiff's expert. On August 27, 2021, we signed a memorandum of understanding to settle this case. Under the terms of the settlement, Patterson agreed to pay $63,000 to resolve the case. Although we agreed to settle this matter, we expressly deny the allegations of the complaint and all liability. Our insurers consented to the settlement and contributed an aggregate of $35,000 to fund the settlement and to reimburse us for certain costs and expenses of the litigation. As a result of the foregoing, we recorded a pre-tax reserve of $63,000 in other accrued liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets in our Corporate segment during the first quarter of fiscal 2022 related to the probable settlement of this litigation. During the first quarter of fiscal 2022, we also recorded a receivable of $27,000 in prepaid expenses and other current assets in the condensed consolidated balance sheets in our Corporate segment related to probable insurance recoveries, which amount was paid into the litigation settlement escrow as required by the memorandum of understanding. The net expense of $36,000 was recorded in operating expenses in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income. We recorded a gain of $8,000 during the second quarter of fiscal 2022 in our Corporate segment to account for our receipt of carrier reimbursement of previously expended fees and costs. The parties filed a stipulation of settlement during the second quarter of fiscal 2022. On February 3, 2022, the District Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and directing the claims administrator to mail a notice of settlement and claim form to all class members. On June 9, 2022, the District Court held a final settlement hearing to determine whether the settlement should be approved. On June 10, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting final approval to the settlement.