Wave after wave of class action lawsuits?

Discussion in 'Patterson Dental Supply' started by anonymous, Apr 2, 2018 at 5:43 PM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    What’s up with the wave of class action lawsuits coming our way? Just ambulance chasers or is there anything legit in the claims?
     

  2. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

     
  3. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Typical when a company loses so much value in stock... Attorneys come out of the wood-work.
     
  4. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/robbins-arroyo-llp-dentsply-sirona-220500086.html?.tsrc=applewf

    "First, Dentsply's reported sales, net income, and goodwill were already artificially inflated by outsized sales and profit margins derived from an illicit price-gouging scheme among its largest distributors, Patterson Companies, Inc. ("Patterson") and Henry Schein, Inc. Second, discovery of this scheme would risk that these distributors would cancel Dentsply's exclusive distribution contracts. On August 9, 2017, Dentsply reported an over $1 billion net loss resulting from a massive goodwill impairment charge, resulting in Dentsply losing its exclusive distribution contract with Patterson, which had recently been sued for anticompetitive price-gouging."
     
  5. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Operation “Moonshot”. ROTFLMAO
     
  6. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    These class action suits are without merit and brought by blood thirsty attorneys whenever a company loses significant value. The anti-competitive / collusion suits in TX and VA are bullshit and will go away. Texas has already settled and VA will too. Just like the gay wedding cake and Red Hen restaurants, companies can choose with whom they do business and offer discounts to.
     
  7. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    You are either uninformed (IGNORANT), or just a puppet for someone (IMPOTENT) or worse yet, you know the truth and seek to obfuscate the truth (COMPLICIT)

    The incredibly smart Notre Dame-educated corporate officer is personally mentioned in the FTC suit below...I guess a Master's degree in Business didn't cover this area of Business Ethics or maybe he missed that class because he was trying to figure out why SAP was bringing his company to a grinding halt.

    Of course any company or person can sell at any price they desire and market conditions will dictate the prosperity or failure of that company. But company "A" cannot communicate (email, voice, or text) with company "B" or "C" and form a joint plan of action or commitment of how they will jointly compete or not compete with one another for any segment of business (this law stands for two reps from respective companies or two corporate officers or middle managers from companies "A", "B" or "C.")

    This is what the lawsuit is about, nothing less, nothing more.
    But the point of the matter is this, the FTC has proof SEE BELOW (beyond a shadow of doubt) that collusion took place between the 3 big guys and Burkhart Dental had enough integrity to say "NO" because they knew this was illegal behavior.
    READ IT FOR YOURSELF...THE BIG 3 HAVE VIOLATED THE TRUST OF THEIR CUSTOMERS, SHAREHOLDERS, and sadly too, THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES.

    STUPID ACTIONS AREN"T ALWAYS ILLEGAL, BUT THOSE THAT ARE ILLEGAL HAVE TO BE PROSECUTED.

    https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/docket_no_9379_benco_schein_patterson_part_3_complaint_final_public_version_2.pdf

    1. Patrick Ryan, a Benco executive who oversaw its Buying Group policy, forwarded Smile Source’s email inquiry to Chuck Cohen, stating: “Better tell your buddy Tim [Sullivan] to knock this shit off.”
      1. Patterson joined the agreement to refuse to provide discounts to or otherwise compete for Buying Groups no later than February 2013.
        1. On February 26, 2013, in response to an inquiry from a Benco regional manager about the New Mexico Buying Group, Cohen stated: “I just sent [Guggenheim] a note about it. Don’t want to call because it might be construed as price fixing.”
          1. Rogan responded: “We don’t need GPO’s in the dental business. Schein, Benco, and Patterson have always said no. I believe it is our duty to uphold this and protect this great industry.”
            1. In response to McElaney’s email on September 16, 2013, Ryan asked Cohen to reach out to Schein and Patterson: “CHUCK - - maybe what you should do is make sure you tell Tim [Sullivan] and Paul [Guggenheim] to hold their positions as we are.”
              1. In 2014 and 2015, contemporaneous documents from the Distributors’ executives continued to confirm the existence of a conscious commitment to a common scheme.

              2. For example, in June 2014, a Patterson executive wrote in a text message: “[W]e’ve signed an agreement that we won’t work with GPO’s.”

              3. In May 2015, Benco’s Ryan rejected a Buying Group and commented in an internal email: “The best part about calling these [buying groups] is I already KNOW that Patterson and Schein have said NO.”

              4. In June 2015, Benco’s Ryan informed a Benco sales representative: “We don’t allow [volume discount] pricing unless there is common ownership. Neither Schein nor Patterson do either.”





     
  8. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    I read the FTC complaint front to back before commenting. I see no evidence that Patterson colluded in anti competitive behavior with it's competitors. It's all quite damning in nature given the direct tone in a lot of the internal correspondence, but there's no smoking gun for PDCO. This too shall pass.
     
  9. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Whats the weather like this time of year in Minnesota? If the FTC brought the complaint there's something there. I cannot imagine they revealed everything they have. Regardless any reasonable person can see there were elements of collusion between Us and Benco and Schein. The gun isn't smoking anymore its been fired and is now being examined by the Govt.
     
  10. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    ....whatever, Vegas didn’t change my mind. This company is fucking doomed.
     
  11. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Are you high? Did you read the evidence filed by the FTC? The idiots were colluding openly and left an email trail ten miles long. It’s actually pretty funny to read. And not-so-surprising given our clown-car of leadership who are burning this company to the ground.

    “There is NO collusion!” Yeah. That doesn’t fly when you are stupid enough to blatantly collude and even send emails back and forth about not getting caught. BRILLIANT!
     
  12. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Dude. Seriously. There is a massive SEC investigation at Dentsply. Half dozen of their top execs summarily fired. Anderson fired before we even had a replacement. Dentsply keeps reporting sales drops in the US market. The whole ‘exclusive’ deal that got flushed practically overnight. There is so much smoke building, it’s clearly a massive bonfire. Top that off with sales policy collusion with HS and other distributors, our brilliant “leadership” is ass deep in the alligators.
     
  13. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Damn alligators
     
  14. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    "Attorney General Paxton Reaches Settlement with Patterson Companies Over Dental Supply Boycott
    Friday, April 20, 2018 – Austin

    Attorney General Ken Paxton today announced a settlement with dental supply distributor Patterson Companies, Inc. after they were discovered violating state antitrust law by conducting an illegal group boycott to eliminate an online rival. The agreed final judgment commits Patterson Companies to pay $200,000 to the state, requires additional antitrust training and prohibits it from repeating an economically damaging practice.

    “Conspiring with competitors to prevent the emergence of new distribution channels for goods and services is contrary to the free market and violates antitrust laws,” Attorney General Paxton said. “Such interference should not be tolerated in any industry. My office will continue to ensure that companies doing business in Texas have the opportunity to compete in a truly free market.”

    The state’s antitrust action stemmed from a three-year investigation into allegations that dental supply distributors Patterson Companies, Henry Schein, and Benco worked together to thwart the entry of a lower-cost, online source of dental supplies provided by the Texas Dental Association (TDA). The state alleged that these distributors colluded to discourage suppliers from working with the TDA and its business partner, and agreed not to attend the TDA’s annual trade show in 2014 in retaliation. Texas previously settled related suits with Patterson’s co-conspirators in the boycotts: Benco Dental Supply Company and Henry Schein, Inc.

    To view the agreed final judgment, click here: https://bit.ly/2JaBBCS "
     
  15. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Don’t confuse Sirona’s shaky timing for recognizing revenue from the former exclusivity agreement with the baseless bullshit FTC complaint against Patterson. Apples and oranges. Sirona was accused of questionable accounting to artificially pump up share value prior to being acquired. There are legitimate concerns that Dentsply may have overpaid in hindsight and heads rolled accordingly. Without sacrificing anonymity, I can tell you in no uncertain terms these “collusion” depositions are going nowhere. The case against Patterson is weak and getting weaker. It will be settled with a wrist slap and ceremonious fine. If making stupid business decisions were a crime, some of our past and current leadership would be in jail.
     
  16. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Look at the names on those filings. It’s the dummies that ran this place into the ground. Did anyone think that the outcome of anything they touched was was derived from nothing more than a poorly thought out scheme?

    Is anyone surprised that A. They’re we’re stupid ins trying to pull it this stunt off and B. That they would use email to communicate the mess?

    Guggenheim is and always has been a dummy. Rogen and the rest of the misfits are should be serving burgers at a Wendy’s.

    The courts will look at these guys and feel sorry for PDCO shareholders.
     
  17. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    I agree with you, the hot water Dentsply is in with the Feds has nada to do with the FTC case against Patterson and the others. These class action law firms make stabs in the dark when an investigation is announced, and I think this latest one is grasping at straws to try and connect the two different investigations. But when the FTC is done, I think the fine will be more than a slap on the wrist. Heads will have to roll. The Dentsply case is way bigger. Even Wall Street Journal said the firings of all their executives was unprecedented. Where there’s smoke...
     
  18. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Exactly. Sirona investigation could yield fruit eventually as there is an appearance of shareholders being defrauded. Dealers tacitly agreeing not to support a state dental association meeting because the association was showcasing an online supply house? Blah blah blah. Who cares?