Patterson Companies (PDCO) 10-Q2021 Q1 Quarterly report

Potentially dilutive securities representing 2,630 shares for the three months ended July 25, 2020 and 2,151 shares for the three months ended July 27, 2019 were excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS because their effects were anti-dilutive using the treasury stock method.

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.

Contract asset balances as of July 25, 2020 and April 25, 2020 were $612 and $1,586, respectively. Our contract liabilities primarily relate to advance payments from customers, upfront payments for software and support provided over time, and options that provide a material right to customers, such as our customer loyalty programs. At July 25, 2020 and April 25, 2020, contract liabilities of $22,444 and $21,205 were reported in other accrued liabilities, respectively. During the three months ended July 25, 2020, we recognized $5,455 of the amount previously deferred at April 25, 2020.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, “Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326),” which requires the measurement of all expected credit losses for financial assets held at the reporting date based on historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts. We adopted the new guidance in the first quarter of fiscal 2021, and it did not have a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements.

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.

Certain assets are measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis. These assets are not measured at fair value on an ongoing basis, but are subject to fair value adjustments under certain circumstances. We adjust the carrying value of our non-marketable equity securities to fair value when observable transactions of identical or similar securities occur, or due to an impairment.

During the three months ended July 27, 2019, we recorded a pre-tax gain of $34,334 related to one of our investments in other income, net in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income. This gain was based on the selling price of preferred stock in this investment that is similar to the preferred stock we own, and was adjusted for differences in liquidation preferences. As of both July 25, 2020 and April 25, 2020, this investment had a carrying value of $51,628. There were 0 fair value adjustments to such assets during the three months ended July 25, 2020.

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 individuals 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. 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.

During the first quarter of fiscal 2019, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia (“USAO-WDVA”) informed us that our subsidiary, Animal Health International, Inc., had been designated a target of a criminal investigation. The investigation originally related to Animal Health International’s 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 law. After being contacted by the USAO-WDVA, Patterson retained outside legal counsel and began an internal investigation. Since that time, we produced documents both responsive to grand jury subpoenas and voluntarily. In December 2018, as a result of our internal investigation, we voluntarily advised the USAO-WDVA that some of Animal Health International’s shipments of prescription animal health products were made from a warehouse rather than a pharmacy to end-user customers in the states of Virginia and Tennessee. Thereafter, as part of our internal investigation, we conducted a comprehensive review of Animal Health International’s distribution and licensing practices across all 50 U.S. states. That review identified compliance issues in additional states, which we voluntarily disclosed to the USAO-WDVA in April 2019. Our Board of Directors established a special investigation committee to oversee and conduct the investigation, to review our licensing, dispensing, distribution and related sales practices company-wide, and to report on its findings to the Board and to the USAO-WDVA. As a result of the internal investigation, we modified our licensing, dispensing, distribution and related sales processes company-wide. We reached an agreement with the USAO-WDVA that resolved the federal government’s criminal investigation into Animal Health International and other non-compliant licensing, dispensing, distribution and related sales processes disclosed during the investigation. Under the terms of the agreement, Animal Health International paid a total criminal fine and forfeiture of $52,800 in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020, and Animal Health International pleaded guilty to a strict-liability misdemeanor offense under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in connection with its failure to comply with federal law relating to the sales of prescription animal health products. In addition, Animal Health International and Patterson entered into a non-prosecution agreement for other non-compliant licensing, dispensing, distribution and related sales processes disclosed during the investigation and committed to undertake additional compliance program enhancements and provide compliance certifications for the period from the date of signing the non-prosecution agreement through the next three full fiscal years. The sentencing hearing took place on May 4, 2020, and the court entered a one-year probation period for Animal Health International. We recorded a reserve of $58,300 in our Corporate segment for the three and six months ended October 26, 2019 to account for the then-anticipated settlement of this matter and certain related costs and expenses. This matter may continue to divert management’s attention and cause us to suffer reputational harm. We also may be subject to other fines or penalties, equitable remedies (including but not limited to the suspension, revocation or non-renewal of licenses) and litigation. The occurrence of any of these events could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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.

Our financial information for the first three months of fiscal 2021 is summarized in this Management’s Discussion and Analysis and the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and related Notes. The following background is provided to readers to assist in the review of our financial information.

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.

Corporate segment operating loss was $17.3 million and $37.0 million for the three months ended July 25, 2020 and July 27, 2019, respectively. The change was driven primarily by lower settlement-related expenses and legal fees during the three months ended July 25, 2020, partially offset by lower net sales related to our customer financing contracts.

We expect the collection of deferred purchase price receivables, existing cash balances and credit availability under existing debt facilities, less our funds used in operations, will be sufficient to meet our working capital needs and to finance our business over the remainder of fiscal 2021.

There have been no material changes in our exposure to market risk from that disclosed in Item 7A in our 2020 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed June 24, 2020.

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) that occurred during the quarter ended July 25, 2020 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

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 individuals 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. 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.

During the first quarter of fiscal 2019, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia (“USAO-WDVA”) informed us that our subsidiary, Animal Health International, Inc., had been designated a target of a criminal investigation. The investigation originally related to Animal Health International’s 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 law. After being contacted by the USAO-WDVA, Patterson retained outside legal counsel and began an internal investigation. Since that time, we produced documents both responsive to grand jury subpoenas and voluntarily. In December 2018, as a result of our internal investigation, we voluntarily advised the USAO-WDVA that some of Animal Health International’s shipments of prescription animal health products were made from a warehouse rather than a pharmacy to end-user customers in the states of Virginia and Tennessee. Thereafter, as part of our internal investigation, we conducted a comprehensive review of Animal Health International’s distribution and licensing practices across all 50 U.S. states. That review identified compliance issues in additional states, which we voluntarily disclosed to the USAO-WDVA in April 2019. Our Board of Directors established a special investigation committee to oversee and conduct the investigation, to review our licensing, dispensing, distribution

and related sales practices company-wide, and to report on its findings to the Board and to the USAO-WDVA. As a result of the internal investigation, we modified our licensing, dispensing, distribution and related sales processes company-wide. We reached an agreement with the USAO-WDVA that resolved the federal government’s criminal investigation into Animal Health International and other non-compliant licensing, dispensing, distribution and related sales processes disclosed during the investigation. Under the terms of the agreement, Animal Health International paid a total criminal fine and forfeiture of $52.8 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020, and Animal Health International pleaded guilty to a strict-liability misdemeanor offense under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in connection with its failure to comply with federal law relating to the sales of prescription animal health products. In addition, Animal Health International and Patterson entered into a non-prosecution agreement for other non-compliant licensing, dispensing, distribution and related sales processes disclosed during the investigation and committed to undertake additional compliance program enhancements and provide compliance certifications for the period from the date of signing the non-prosecution agreement through the next three full fiscal years. The sentencing hearing took place on May 4, 2020, and the court entered a one-year probation period for Animal Health International. We recorded a reserve of $58.3 million in our Corporate segment for the three and six months ended October 26, 2019 to account for the then-anticipated settlement of this matter and certain related costs and expenses. This matter may continue to divert management’s attention and cause us to suffer reputational harm. We also may be subject to other fines or penalties, equitable remedies (including but not limited to the suspension, revocation or non-renewal of licenses) and litigation. The occurrence of any of these events could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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 $412.8 million 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.

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. In March 2019, we permanently reduced the capacity under the revolving line of credit to $500 million. In fiscal 2020, we entered into a senior unsecured term loan facility agreement (the "Term Loan Facility Agreement"), consisting of a $300 million term loan. The Amended Credit Agreement and the Term Loan Facility Agreement permit 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.

(*) The Inline XBRL related information in Exhibits 101 and 104 to this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability of that section and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing or other document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing or document.