Patterson Companies - 10-Q quarterly report FY2018 Q3

PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.

PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands)

See accompanying notes

PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME

AND OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(In thousands, except per share amounts)

See accompanying notes

PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In thousands)

See accompanying notes

PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Dollars, except per share amounts, and shares in thousands)

(Unaudited)

Note 1. General

Basis of Presentation

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include the assets and liabilities of PDC Funding Company, LLC ("PDC Funding") and PDC Funding Company II, LLC ("PDC Funding II"), which are our wholly owned subsidiaries and separate legal entities formed under Minnesota law. PDC Funding and PDC Funding II are fully consolidated special purpose entities established to sell customer installment sale contracts to outside financial institutions in the normal course of their business. The assets of PDC Funding and PDC Funding II would be available first and foremost to satisfy the claims of its creditors. There are no known creditors of PDC Funding or PDC Funding II.

Fiscal Year End

Comprehensive Income

Earnings Per Share

The following table sets forth the computation of the weighted average shares outstanding used to calculate basic and diluted earnings per share ("EPS"):

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In July 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-11, "Inventory (Topic 330), Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory." ASU 2015-11 requires inventory measured using any method other than LIFO or the retail inventory method to be subsequently measured at the lower of cost or net realizable value, rather than at the lower of cost or market. Subsequent measurement of inventory using the LIFO and retail inventory method is unchanged. During the first quarter of fiscal 2018, we adopted ASU No. 2015-11 and it had no material impact to the condensed consolidated financial statements.

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01, "Financial Instruments- Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities (Subtopic 825-10)", which amends certain aspects of recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure of financial instruments, including the requirement to measure certain equity investments at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in net income. We are required to adopt the ASU No. 2016-01 in the first quarter of fiscal 2019. We are evaluating the impact of adopting this pronouncement.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, "Leases (Topic 842)," which requires lessees to recognize assets and liabilities on the balance sheet for the rights and obligations created by most leases, as well as requires additional qualitative and quantitative disclosures. We are required to adopt ASU 2016-02 in the first quarter of fiscal 2020, with early adoption permitted. We plan to adopt the new guidance in the first quarter of fiscal 2020 and are currently evaluating the impact of adopting this pronouncement.

In February 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-02, "Income Statement-Reporting Comprehensive Income (Topic 220) Reclassification of Certain Tax Effects from Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income," which will allow a reclassification from accumulated other comprehensive income to retained earnings for the tax effects that are stranded in accumulated other comprehensive income as a result of tax reform. This standard also requires certain disclosures about stranded tax effects. We are required to adopt ASU No. 2018-02 in the first quarter of fiscal 2020, with early adoption permitted and apply it either in the period of adoption or retrospectively to each period in which the income tax effects of the tax reform related to items in accumulated other comprehensive income are recognized. We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting this pronouncement.

 

Note 2. Customer Financing

We service the financing contracts under both arrangements, for which we are paid a servicing fee. The servicing fees we receive are considered adequate compensation for services rendered. Accordingly, no servicing asset or liability has been recorded.

The portion of the purchase price for the receivables held by the conduits is deemed a deferred purchase price receivable, which is paid to the applicable special purpose entity as payments on the customers’ financing contracts are collected by Patterson from customers. The difference between the carrying amount of the receivables sold under these programs and the sum of the cash and fair value of the deferred purchase price receivables received at time of transfer is recognized as a gain on sale of the related receivables and recorded in net sales in the condensed consolidated statements of income and other comprehensive income. Expenses incurred related to customer financing activities are recorded in operating expenses in our condensed consolidated statements of income and other comprehensive income.

Note 3. Derivative Financial Instruments

These interest rate cap agreements do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment and, accordingly, we record the fair value of the agreements as an asset or liability and the change as income or expense during the period in which the change occurs.

The following presents the fair value of derivative instruments included in the condensed consolidated balance sheets:

Note 4. Fair Value Measurements

Fair value is the price at which an asset could be exchanged in a current transaction between knowledgeable, willing parties. The fair value hierarchy of measurements is categorized into one of three levels based on the lowest level of significant input used:

Our hierarchy for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis is as follows:

Note 5. Income Taxes

The legislative changes included in the Tax Act are broad and complex. We determined that the transition tax on unremitted foreign earnings is provisional because various components of the computation are unknown as of January 27, 2018. In addition, we determined that the impact of the U.S. federal corporate income tax rate change on the U.S. deferred tax assets and liabilities is provisional because the amount cannot be calculated until the underlying timing differences are known rather than estimated.

Given the Tax Act’s significant changes and potential opportunities to repatriate cash tax free, we are in the process of evaluating our current indefinite assertions with regard to cash and earnings that have been subjected to the transition tax. We continue to apply ASC 740 based on the provisions of the tax law that were in effect immediately prior to the enactment of the Tax Act. With regard to unremitted earnings of foreign subsidiaries that have not been previously taxed, we do not currently provide for U.S. taxes since we intend to invest such undistributed earnings indefinitely outside of the U.S.

We continue to review the anticipated impacts of the global intangible low taxed income (“GILTI”) and base erosion and anti-abuse tax (“BEAT”) provisions which are not effective until fiscal year 2019. We have not recorded any impact associated with either GILTI or BEAT in the tax rate for the three months ended January 27, 2018.

The final transition impacts of the Tax Act may differ from the above estimate, possibly materially, due to, among other things, changes in interpretations of the Tax Act, any federal and/or state legislative action to address questions that arise because of the Tax Act, any changes in accounting standards for income taxes or related interpretations in response to the Tax Act, or any updates or changes to estimates we have utilized to calculate the transition impacts, including impacts from changes to current year earnings estimates and foreign exchange rates of foreign subsidiaries. The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued rules that will allow for a measurement period of up to one year after the enactment date of the Tax Act to finalize the recording of the related tax impacts.

Note 6. Intangible Asset Impairment

Note 7. Segment Reporting

dentists, dental laboratories, institutions, and other healthcare professionals throughout North America. Animal Health is a leading, full-line distributor in North America and the U.K. of animal health products, services and technologies to both the production-animal and companion-pet markets. Our Corporate segment is comprised of general and administrative expenses, including home office support costs in areas such as information technology, finance, legal, human resources and facilities. In addition, customer financing and other miscellaneous sales are reported within Corporate results. Corporate assets consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, property and equipment and long-term receivables. We evaluate segment performance based on operating income. The costs to operate the fulfillment centers are allocated to the operating units based on the through-put of the unit.

The following table presents information about our reportable segments:

The following table presents sales information by product for all of our reportable segments:

Note 8. Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss ("AOCL")

Note 9. 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. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial statements.

Beginning in January 2016, purported 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 persons who purchased dental supplies or equipment in the U.S. directly from any of the defendants, since August 31, 2008. 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. While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we believe the consolidated class action complaint is without merit, and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this litigation.

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 March 2, 2018, the case was stayed by the United States Supreme Court pending its decision as to whether to review an arbitration issue raised by the Danaher Defendants. 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 to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. 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.

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.

modification, cancellation or delay of purchases of innovative, high-margin equipment; material changes in our purchasing relationships with suppliers; changes in general market and economic conditions; and the other risks and important factors contained and identified in Patterson’s previous filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, such as its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Annual Reports on Form 10-K, any of which could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements.

We present three reportable segments: Dental, Animal Health and Corporate. Dental and Animal Health are strategic business units that offer similar products and services to different customer bases. Dental provides a virtually complete range of consumable dental products, equipment and software, turnkey digital solutions and value-added services to dentists and dental laboratories throughout North America. Animal Health is a leading, full-line distributor in North America and the U.K. of animal health products, services and technologies to both the production-animal and companion-pet markets. Our Corporate segment is comprised of general and administrative expenses, including home office support costs in areas such as information technology, finance, legal, human resources and facilities. In addition, customer financing and other miscellaneous sales are reported within Corporate results.

Operating margins of the animal health business are considerably lower than the dental business. While operating expenses run at a lower rate in the animal health business when compared to the dental business, gross margins in the animal health business are substantially lower due generally to the low margins experienced on the sale of pharmaceutical products.

We believe there are several important aspects of our business that are useful in analyzing it, including: (1) growth in the various markets in which we operate; (2) internal growth; (3) growth through acquisition; and (4) continued focus on controlling costs and enhancing efficiency. Management defines internal growth as the increase in net sales from period to period, adjusting for differences in the number of weeks in fiscal years, excluding the impact of changes in currency exchange rates, and excluding the net sales, for a period of twelve months following the transaction date, of businesses we have acquired.

For our fiscal year ending April 28, 2018, we will utilize a blended rate of approximately 30.5%. For the quarter ended January 27, 2018, these impacts resulted in a provisional discrete net tax benefit of $77.3 million, which included provisional amounts of $81.2 million of tax benefit on U.S. deferred tax assets and liabilities and $4.0 million of tax expense for a one-time transition tax on unremitted foreign earnings.

The following table summarizes our results from continuing operations as a percent of net sales from continuing operations:

The decrease in this ratio was driven by the impairment charge in the prior year quarter, partially offset by lower net sales in the current quarter.

For the three months ended January 27, 2018 and January 28, 2017, net loss from discontinued operations was $0 and $3.2 million, respectively. The net loss incurred during the three months ended January 28, 2017 was due to a change in estimate of the tax impact of the sale of Patterson Medical, which was completed in August 2015.

The following table summarizes our results from continuing operations as a percent of net sales from continuing operations:

For the nine months ended January 27, 2018 and January 28, 2017, net loss from discontinued operations was $0 and $3.2 million, respectively. The net loss incurred during the nine months ended January 28, 2017 was due to a change in estimate of the tax impact of the sale of Patterson Medical, which was completed in August 2015.

During fiscal 2016, we entered into a credit agreement ("Credit Agreement"), under which the lenders provided us with senior unsecured lending facilities of up to $1.5 billion, consisting of a $1.0 billion unsecured term loan and a $500 million unsecured revolving line of credit. In fiscal 2017, we entered into an amendment of the Credit Agreement (“Amended Credit Agreement”), consisting of a $295.1 million term loan and a $750 million revolving line of credit. Interest on borrowings is variable and is determined as a base rate plus a spread. This spread, as well as a commitment fee on the unused portion of the facility, is based on our leverage ratio, as defined in the Amended Credit Agreement. The term loan and revolving credit facilities will mature no later than January 2022.

See Note 1 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

There have been no material changes in our exposure to market risk from that disclosed in Item 7A in our 2017 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed June 28, 2017.

ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

PART II—OTHER INFORMATION

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. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial statements.

Beginning in January 2016, purported 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 persons who purchased dental supplies or equipment in the U.S. directly from any of the defendants, since August 31, 2008. 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. While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we believe the consolidated class action complaint is without merit, and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this litigation.

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 March 2, 2018, the case was stayed by the United States Supreme Court pending its decision as to whether to review an arbitration issue raised by the Danaher Defendants. 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 to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. 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.

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.

ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS

On March 19, 2013, our Board of Directors approved a share repurchase plan that replaced a previously existing share repurchase plan. Under the March 19, 2013 plan, up to 25 million shares may be purchased in open market transactions through March 19, 2018.

During fiscal 2016, we entered into a credit agreement ("Credit Agreement"), under which the lenders provided us with senior unsecured lending facilities of up to $1.5 billion, consisting of a $1.0 billion unsecured term loan and a $500 million unsecured revolving line of credit. The Credit Agreement was due to expire in fiscal 2021. In fiscal 2017, we entered into an amendment of the Credit Agreement (“Amended Credit Agreement”), consisting of a $295.1 million term loan and a $750 million revolving line of credit. The Amended Credit Agreement permits us to declare and pay

dividends, and repurchase shares, provided that no default or unmatured default exists and that we are in compliance with applicable financial covenants.

ITEM 6. EXHIBITS

All other items under Part II have been omitted because they are inapplicable or the answers are negative, or were previously reported in the 2017 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed June 28, 2017.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.