Litigation

Beginning in January 2016, class action complaints were filed against Patterson Companies, Inc. (“Patterson”), Benco Dental Supply Co. (“Benco”) and Henry Schein, Inc. Each of these complaints allege, among other things, that defendants conspired to fix prices, allocate customers and foreclose competitors by boycotting manufacturers, state dental associations and others that deal with defendants’ competitors. Subject to certain exclusions, these classes seek to represent all persons who purchased dental supplies or equipment in the United States directly from any of the defendants or Burkhart Dental Supply Co. (“Burkhart”) since August 31, 2008. Each 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, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against these actions.

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, Inc., an unnamed company and the Danaher Defendants to terminate or limit Archer’s distribution rights. On October 1, 2012, Henry Schein filed a motion for an order: (i) compelling Archer to arbitrate its claims against Henry Schein; (2) staying all proceedings pending arbitration; and (3) joining the Danaher Defendants’ motion to arbitrate and stay. On May 28, 2013, the Magistrate Judge granted the motions to arbitrate and stayed proceedings pending arbitration. On June 10, 2013, Archer moved for reconsideration before the District Court judge. On December 7, 2016, the District Court Judge granted Archer’s motion for reconsideration and lifted the stay. Defendants appealed the District Court’s order. On December 21, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order denying the motions to compel arbitration. On February 12, 2018, defendants filed an Application for Stay of Proceedings in the District Court in the Supreme Court of the United States, seeking to stay proceedings in the District Court pending a decision on defendants’ forthcoming petition for writ of certiorari.

On August 1, 2017, Archer filed an amended complaint, adding Patterson and Benco as defendants, and alleging that Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson, Benco and Burkhart conspired to fix prices and refused to compete with each other for sales of dental equipment to dental professionals and agreed to enlist their common suppliers, the Danaher Defendants, to join a price-fixing conspiracy and boycott by reducing the distribution territory of, and eventually terminating, their price-cutting competing distributor 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 October 30, 2017, Archer filed a second amended complaint under seal, to add additional allegations that it believes support its claims. The named parties and causes of action are the same as the August 1, 2017 amended complaint. Trial is currently scheduled for May 2018. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action.

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 (“SourceOne”). SourceOne had previously brought an antitrust lawsuit against the Company, Patterson and Benco which the Company settled in the second quarter of 2017 and which is described in the Company’s prior filings with the SEC.

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 the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 19, 2018, IQ Dental appealed the District Court’s order. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this action.

On February 12, 2018, the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a complaint against Benco Dental Supply Co., Henry Schein, Inc. and Patterson Companies, Inc. The FTC alleges, among other things, that defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws by conspiring, and entering into an agreement, to refuse to provide discounts to or otherwise serve buying groups representing dental practitioners. The FTC alleges that defendants conspired in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The complaint seeks equitable relief only and does not seek monetary damages. We deny the allegation that we conspired to refuse to provide discounts to or otherwise serve dental buying groups and intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action. The Company believes this matter will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

From time to time, we may become a party to other legal proceedings, including, without limitation, product liability 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 are currently anticipated to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

As of December 30, 2017, we had accrued our best estimate of potential losses relating to claims that were probable to result in liability and for which we were able to reasonably estimate a loss. This accrued amount, as well as related expenses, was not material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Our method for determining estimated losses considers currently available facts, presently enacted laws and regulations and other factors, including probable recoveries from third parties.