Legal Proceedings

6 Months Ended

Oct. 24, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Legal Proceedings

Legal Proceedings

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. 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.

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. Effective June 30, 2020, the Board adopted a resolution expanding the scope of the previously constituted special litigation committee to include this matter. 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. Johnsen on behalf of Patterson.

On October 27, 2020, Patterson’s Board received a written demand from Matthew Davis to undertake an independent investigation and take action to remedy alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the following current and former directors and officers of Patterson: John Buck, Scott Anderson, Stephen Armstrong, Ann Gugino, Mark Walchirk, Alex Blanco, Jody Feragen, Sarena Lin, Ellen Rudnick, Neil Schrimsher, Les Vinney, James Wiltz, Paul Guggenheim, David Misiak, Harold Slavkin and Tim Rogan. The demand arises from the allegations that Patterson (a) conspired with Henry Schein and Benco over a multi-year period to boycott GPOs and fix dental supply prices; and (b) issued a series of materially false and misleading statements in connection with such scheme. The demand seeks the institution of an action for breach of fiduciary duty and appropriate remedial measures, including obtaining damages from all persons unjustly enriched. Effective November 20, 2020, Patterson’s Board adopted a resolution expanding the scope of the previously constituted special litigation committee to include this matter. 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 Mr. Davis on behalf of Patterson.