Patterson Companies - 10-Q quarterly report FY2019 Q3

______________________________ 

 ______________________________

 _____________________________

PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.

PART I—FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands, except per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME

AND OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(In thousands, except per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

 

See accompanying notes

PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

(In thousands)

(Unaudited)

PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In thousands)

(Unaudited)

 

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"), PDC Funding Company II, LLC ("PDC Funding II") and PDC Funding Company III, LLC ("PDC Funding III"), 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. PDC Funding III is a fully consolidated special purpose entity established to sell certain receivables to unaffiliated financial institutions. The assets of PDC Funding, PDC Funding II and PDC Funding III would be available first and foremost to satisfy the claims of its creditors. There are no known creditors of PDC Funding, PDC Funding II or PDC Funding III. The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements also include the assets and liabilities of Technology Partner Innovations, LLC, which is further described in Note 7.

Contract balances represent amounts presented in our condensed consolidated balance sheets when either we have transferred goods or services to the customer or the customer has paid consideration to us under the contract. These contract balances include accounts receivable, contract assets and contract liabilities.

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 adopted ASU No. 2016-01 in the first quarter of fiscal 2019, and the adoption had no impact on our consolidated net earnings, financial position, or cash flows.

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 will adopt the new guidance in the first quarter of fiscal 2020 and are currently evaluating the impact of adopting this pronouncement, and anticipate that the new guidance will impact our condensed consolidated balance sheets.

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 will adopt ASU No. 2018-02 in the first quarter of fiscal 2020, 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. Receivables Securitization Program

Note 3. 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 DPP 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 DPP receivable 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 4. Derivative Financial Instruments

We are a party to certain offsetting and identical interest rate cap agreements entered into to fulfill certain covenants of the equipment finance contract sale agreements. The interest rate cap agreements also provide a credit enhancement feature for the financing contracts sold by PDC Funding and PDC Funding II to the commercial paper conduit.

The interest rate cap agreements are canceled and new agreements are entered into periodically to maintain consistency with the dollar maximum of the sale agreements and the maturity of the underlying financing contracts.

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:

The following tables present the pre-tax effect of derivative instruments on the condensed consolidated statements of income:

Note 5. Fair Value Measurements

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

Note 6. Income Taxes

While we have completed our accounting for the previously recorded provisional impacts of the Tax Act, pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Commission rules, under SAB 118, changes in interpretations of the Tax Act, analysis of proposed and final regulations as they are issued, current and additional guidance from the Internal Revenue Service and/or state legislative actions as well as potential changes in accounting standards surrounding income taxes and the Tax Act may result in further, potentially material, changes to these completed computations.

Note 7. Technology Partner Innovations, LLC

Note 8. Segment and Geographic Data

The following tables present information about our reportable segments:

Note 9. Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss ("AOCL")

Note 10. Legal Proceedings

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 June 25, 2018, the United States 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 remanding the case to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings on a second arbitration issue consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. 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 the District Court’s order. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on September 13, 2018. The court’s decision is pending. 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.

During the first quarter of fiscal 2019, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia informed us that our subsidiary, Animal Health International, Inc., has been designated a target of a criminal investigation.  The investigation relates to Animal Health International 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 and state laws.  In October 2018, we entered into a three-month tolling agreement, which was subsequently extended to July 31, 2019, to allow us to produce documents responsive to grand jury subpoenas and to allow for further evaluation of evidence.  In December 2018, as a result of our ongoing internal investigation, we advised the U.S. Attorney’s Office of our shipments of prescription animal health products that were made from a warehouse rather than a pharmacy in the states of Virginia and Tennessee. We have modified our shipment processes and are continuing to evaluate the need for further modification. We continue to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney’s Office on this matter. At this time, we are unable to make an estimate of the amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that we could incur as a result of the foregoing matter.

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 court ordered this litigation stayed pending resolution of the below-described case brought by Sally Pemberton. 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 9, 2018, Nathaniel Kramer filed indirect purchaser litigation against Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein, Inc. and Benco Dental Supply Company in the United States 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. 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.

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.

While management currently believes that resolving all of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial statements, the litigation and other claims noted above are subject to inherent uncertainties and management’s view of these matters may change in the future.  Adverse outcomes in some or all of the claims pending against us 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 final outcome becomes probable and reasonably estimable.

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. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

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.

FACTORS AFFECTING OUR RESULTS

The proceeds from the sale of these Receivables comprise a combination of cash and a deferred purchase price (“DPP”) receivable. The initial transaction was a sale of $237.6 million of net receivables. From this sale, we received $171.0 million of cash and a DPP receivable with a fair value of $65.9 million. In addition, we recorded a loss of $0.7 million as a result of this transaction. The proceeds from the initial sale were primarily used to reduce debt.

The DPP receivable is ultimately realized by Patterson following the collection of the underlying Receivables sold to the Purchasers. The collection of the DPP receivable is recognized as an increase to net cash provided by investing activities within the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows, with a corresponding reduction to net cash provided by operating activities within the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows.

In fiscal 2017, we entered into an amended 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.

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 2018 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed June 27, 2018.

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. Trial is scheduled to begin on April 29, 2019. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial statements.

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. As a result, we recorded a charge of $28.3 million in our first quarter 2019 results in our Corporate segment.

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 June 25, 2018, the United States 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 remanding the case to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings on a second arbitration issue consistent with the Supreme Court’s

opinion. 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 the District Court’s order. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on September 13, 2018. The court’s decision is pending. 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.

During the first quarter of fiscal 2019, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia informed us that our subsidiary, Animal Health International, Inc., has been designated a target of a criminal investigation.  The investigation relates to Animal Health International 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 and state laws.  In October 2018, we entered into a three-month tolling agreement, which was subsequently extended to July 31, 2019, to allow us to produce documents responsive to grand jury subpoenas and to allow for further evaluation of evidence.  In December 2018, as a result of our ongoing internal investigation, we advised the U.S. Attorney’s Office of our shipments of prescription animal health products that were made from a warehouse rather than a pharmacy in the states of Virginia and Tennessee. We have modified our shipment processes and are continuing to evaluate the need for further modification. We continue to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney’s Office on this matter. At this time, we are unable to make an estimate of the amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that we could incur as a result of the foregoing matter.

On October 9, 2018, Nathaniel Kramer filed indirect purchaser litigation against Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein, Inc. and Benco Dental Supply Company in the United States 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. 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.

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.