WELCOME TO THE PATTERSON SECURITIES LITIGATION WEBSITE

This website has been established to provide general information related to the proposed settlement of the case known as Plymouth County Retirement System v. Patterson Companies, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 0:18-cv-00871-MJD-HB (the "Litigation"), pending before the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (the "Court"). The capitalized terms used on this website, and not otherwise defined, shall have the same meanings ascribed to them in the Stipulation of Settlement dated October 11, 2021 (the "Stipulation"), which can be found and downloaded by clicking on the Case Documents tab above. Your rights may be affected by the Settlement if you purchased or otherwise acquired Patterson Companies, Inc. ("Patterson" or the "Company") common stock between June 26, 2013 and February 28, 2018, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

The entities that lead the Litigation, Plymouth County Retirement System, Pembroke Pines Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, Central Laborers Pension Plan, and Gwinnett County Public Employees Retirement System, are collectively referred to as the “Class Representatives,” “Plaintiffs” or “Lead Plaintiffs.” The company and individual, Patterson and Scott P. Anderson, being sued are called the Defendants.

The law firms of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Saxena White P.A. (“Lead Counsel”) represent Class Members. Class Members will not be charged for these lawyers. They will be paid from the Settlement Fund to the extent the Court approves their application for fees and expenses.

WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?

As more fully described in the Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), the Amended Complaint alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the individual defendants.  The Amended Complain alleged that Defendants made the following misrepresentations:

(i) On June 26, 2013; June 25, 2014; June 24, 2015; June 29, 2016; and June 28, 2017; in Patterson’s Form 10-K filings incorporating Principles of Business Conduct and Code of Ethics: “Patterson fully complies with the antitrust laws and fair trade practices of the United States and all other applicable jurisdictions . . . . [S]pecific guidelines that should be observed by all employees . . . [(i)] [n]ever discuss pricing policies with competitors . . . [(ii)] [n]ever engage in a joint selling activity with a competitor . . . [(iii)] [n]ever ask a vendor to cease doing business with a competitor . . . [(iv)] [a]void even the appearance of improper or collusive conduct when meeting with competitors or vendors at trade shows or trade association meetings.”

(ii) On June 29, 2016; and June 28, 2017; in Patterson’s Form 10-K Filings: “[W]e compete against Henry Schein, Inc. [and] Benco Dental Supply Company.”

(iii) On June 29, 2016; and June 28, 2017; in Patterson’s Form 10-K Filings: “Although we are seeking to obtain access to lower prices demanded by GPO contracts or other contracts, and develop relationships with provider networks and new GPOs, we cannot assure that such terms will be obtained or contracts will be executed.”

The Class Representatives assert that these statements were false and misleading because Patterson had allegedly conspired with its chief competitors, Benco Dental Supply Company and Henry Schein, Inc., to prevent Group Purchasing Organizations (“GPOs”) from entering the dental supply distribution market, in violation of antitrust laws. The Amended Complaint further alleged that as a result of the false statements, the price of Patterson common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period, and that when the truth about the claimed antitrust violations was revealed through three corrective disclosures, the price of Patterson stock declined, thereby damaging Class Members.

Defendants deny all of Lead Plaintiffs’ allegations. Defendants contend that they made no materially false or misleading statements, and that they disclosed all information required to be disclosed by the federal securities laws. Defendants also contend that Lead Plaintiffs are unable to meet their burden to prove loss causation or economic loss related to the alleged false or misleading statements.

On November 5, 2019, the Settling Parties participated in a voluntary confidential mediation. The mediation was preceded by the submission and exchange of mediation materials by the Settling Parties. While the Settling Parties engaged in good faith negotiations, they did not reach a settlement and litigation continued. On August 3, 2020, Defendants and Lead Plaintiffs participated in another mediation session. Prior to this session, the Settling Parties exchanged and submitted supplemental mediation materials to the mediator. Although the Settling Parties engaged in arm’s-length negotiations during the mediation session and were unable to reach an agreement, they continued settlement discussions. On August 27, 2021, the Settling Parties reached an agreement-in-principle to resolve the Litigation, and executed a Memorandum of Understanding memorializing their agreement. The agreement included, among other things, the Settling Parties’ agreement to settle the Litigation in return for a cash payment of $63 million for the benefit of the Class, subject to the negotiation of the terms of a Stipulation of Settlement and approval by the Court. The Stipulation (together with the Exhibits thereto) reflects the final and binding agreement, and a compromise of all matters that are in dispute, between the Settling Parties.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

The Settlement provides that, in exchange for the release of the Released Claims and dismissal of the Litigation, Defendants have agreed to pay (or cause to be paid) $63 million in cash to be distributed after taxes, tax expenses, notice and claims administration expenses, and approved attorneys’ fees and expenses, pro rata, to Class Members who send in a valid Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form") pursuant to the Court-approved Plan of Allocation.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Although the information in this website is intended to assist you, it does not replace the information contained in the Notice and Stipulation, both of which can be found and downloaded by clicking on the Case Documents tab above. We recommend that you read the Notice and other relevant case documents carefully.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES