Feb 13, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
“Big Three” Dental Products Distributors Sued by FTC for Alleged Discount Conspiracy
Benco Dental Supply Company, Henry Schein, Inc. & Patterson Companies, Inc. Named in FTC Complaint Alleging Conspiracy Not to Provide Discounts to a Customer Segment
Henry Schein (NASDAQ:HSIC) dropped more than 12% in intraday trading on February 13, 2018, down $9.17 per share to $63.01 from a February 12, 2018 closing price of $72.18 per share.
On February 12, 2018, the FTC announced that it filed a complaint against the nation’s three largest dental supply companies, Benco Dental Supply, Henry Schein, and Patterson Companies, alleging that they violated United States antitrust laws by conspiring to refuse to provide discounts to or otherwise serve buying groups representing dental practitioners. These buying groups sought lower prices for dental supplies and equipment on behalf of solo and small-group dental practices seeking to gain discounts by aggregating and leveraging the collective purchasing power and bargaining skills of the individual practices.
According to the FTC, the alleged agreement among Benco, Henry Schein, and Patterson deprived independent dentists of the benefits of participating in buying groups that purchase dental supplies from national, full-service distributors. The FTC’s complaint details communications between executives of the two companies evidencing an agreement to refuse to provide discounts or compete for the business of buying groups, as well as attempts to monitor and ensure compliance with the agreement. The FTC’s complaint also asserts that Patterson joined the agreement.
The FTC’s complaint also alleges that on multiple occasions, Benco Dental Supply invited Burkhart Dental Supply, a regional distributor and the fourth largest full-service distributor in the United States, to refuse to provide discounts to buying groups.
Based on the agreement among the distributors, the FTC’s complaint contends that Benco, Henry Schein, and Patterson unreasonably restrained price competition for dental products in the United States; distorted prices and undermined the ability of independent dentists to obtain lower prices and discounts for dental products; deprived independent dentists of the benefits of vigorous price and service competition among full-service, national dental distributors; unreasonably reduced output of dental products to dental buying groups; and eliminated or reduced the competitive bidding process for sales to these buying groups.
As full-service dental distributors, Benco, Henry Schein and Patterson offer gloves, cements, sterilization products and a range of other consumable supplies, as well as equipment, such as dental chairs and lights. Collectively, the big three control more than 85 percent of all distributor sales of dental products and services nationwide.
The United States market for dental products is valued at approximately $10 billion, and, according to the FTC, the dental practices that would have benefited from the discounts achieved by these buying groups were small businesses comprised of solo or small groups of dentists.
Henry Schein, Inc. Shareholders and Investors
If you own, or otherwise acquired, shares of Henry Schein and have questions or concerns about the securities investigation or your potential rights or legal claims, please contact John A. Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected]
Feb 13, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
“Big Three” Dental Products Distributors Sued by FTC for Alleged Discount Conspiracy
Benco Dental Supply Company, Henry Schein, Inc. & Patterson Companies, Inc. Named in FTC Complaint Alleging Conspiracy Not to Provide Discounts to a Customer Segment
Patterson Companies, Inc. (NASDAQ:PDCO) Stock Drops More than 9.5% in Pre-Market Trading on February 13, 2018 down to a share price of $29.79 from a February 12, 2018 closing price of $32.92.
On February 12, 2018, the FTC announced that it filed a complaint against the nation’s three largest dental supply companies, Benco Dental Supply, Henry Schein, and Patterson Companies, alleging that they violated United States antitrust laws by conspiring to refuse to provide discounts to or otherwise serve buying groups representing dental practitioners. These buying groups sought lower prices for dental supplies and equipment on behalf of solo and small-group dental practices seeking to gain discounts by aggregating and leveraging the collective purchasing power and bargaining skills of the individual practices.
According to the FTC, the alleged agreement among Benco, Henry Schein, and Patterson deprived independent dentists of the benefits of participating in buying groups that purchase dental supplies from national, full-service distributors. The FTC’s complaint details communications between executives of the two companies evidencing an agreement to refuse to provide discounts or compete for the business of buying groups, as well as attempts to monitor and ensure compliance with the agreement. The FTC’s complaint also asserts that Patterson joined the agreement.
The FTC’s complaint also alleges that on multiple occasions, Benco Dental Supply invited Burkhart Dental Supply, a regional distributor and the fourth largest full-service distributor in the United States, to refuse to provide discounts to buying groups.
Based on the agreement among the distributors, the FTC’s complaint contends that Benco, Henry Schein, and Patterson unreasonably restrained price competition for dental products in the United States; distorted prices and undermined the ability of independent dentists to obtain lower prices and discounts for dental products; deprived independent dentists of the benefits of vigorous price and service competition among full-service, national dental distributors; unreasonably reduced output of dental products to dental buying groups; and eliminated or reduced the competitive bidding process for sales to these buying groups.
As full-service dental distributors, Benco, Henry Schein and Patterson offer gloves, cements, sterilization products and a range of other consumable supplies, as well as equipment, such as dental chairs and lights. Collectively, the big three control more than 85 percent of all distributor sales of dental products and services nationwide.
The United States market for dental products is valued at approximately $10 billion, and, according to the FTC, the dental practices that would have benefited from the discounts achieved by these buying groups were small businesses comprised of solo or small groups of dentists.
Patterson Companies Shareholders and Investors
If you own, or otherwise acquired, shares of Patterson Companies and have questions or concerns about the securities investigation or your potential rights or legal claims, please contact John A. Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected]
Feb 13, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Benco Dental Supply Company, Henry Schein, Inc. & Patterson Companies, Inc. Named in FTC Complaint Alleging Conspiracy Not to Provide Discounts to a Customer Segment
On February 12, 2018, the FTC announced that it filed a complaint against the nation’s three largest dental supply companies, Benco Dental Supply, Henry Schein, and Patterson Companies, alleging that they violated United States antitrust laws by conspiring to refuse to provide discounts to or otherwise serve buying groups representing dental practitioners. These buying groups sought lower prices for dental supplies and equipment on behalf of solo and small-group dental practices seeking to gain discounts by aggregating and leveraging the collective purchasing power and bargaining skills of the individual practices.
According to the FTC, the alleged agreement among Benco, Henry Schein, and Patterson deprived independent dentists of the benefits of participating in buying groups that purchase dental supplies from national, full-service distributors. The FTC’s complaint details communications between executives of the two companies evidencing an agreement to refuse to provide discounts or compete for the business of buying groups, as well as attempts to monitor and ensure compliance with the agreement. The FTC’s complaint also asserts that Patterson joined the agreement.
The FTC’s complaint also alleges that on multiple occasions, Benco Dental Supply invited Burkhart Dental Supply, a regional distributor and the fourth largest full-service distributor in the United States, to refuse to provide discounts to buying groups.
Based on the agreement among the distributors, the FTC’s complaint contends that Benco, Henry Schein, and Patterson unreasonably restrained price competition for dental products in the United States; distorted prices and undermined the ability of independent dentists to obtain lower prices and discounts for dental products; deprived independent dentists of the benefits of vigorous price and service competition among full-service, national dental distributors; unreasonably reduced output of dental products to dental buying groups; and eliminated or reduced the competitive bidding process for sales to these buying groups.
As full-service dental distributors, Benco, Henry Schein and Patterson offer gloves, cements, sterilization products and a range of other consumable supplies, as well as equipment, such as dental chairs and lights. Collectively, the big three control more than 85 percent of all distributor sales of dental products and services nationwide.
The United States market for dental products is valued at approximately $10 billion, and, according to the FTC, the dental practices that would have benefited from the discounts achieved by these buying groups were small businesses comprised of solo or small groups of dentists.
Source: FTC.gov
Feb 13, 2018 | Securities Class Action Archive
Securities Investigation on Behalf of BMY Shareholders and Investors
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Bristol-Myers Squibb (NYSE: BMY) to determine whether Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and certain of its officers and/or directors engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.
INVESTORS WHO BOUGHT BMY STOCK BETWEEN JANUARY 27, 2015 AND OCTOBER 9, 2016, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE, HAVE UNTIL APRIL10, 2018 TO SEEK APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
On August 5, 2016, Bristol-Myers announced that its CheckMate-026 trial investigating the use of Opdivo (nivolumab) as monotherapy had failed, because it did not meet its primary endpoint of progression-free survival.
On this news, Bristol-Myers’s share price fell $12.04, or 16%, to close at $63.28 on August 5, 2016. The stock price of Bristol-Myers continued to fall on the next trading day, declining another $2.98, or 4.7%, to close at $60.30 on August 8, 2016.
Subsequently, on October 9, 2016, Bristol-Myers disclosed the final primary analysis of CheckMate-026, including the finding that overall survival was only 14.4 months for Opdivo versus 13.2 months for chemotherapy.
On this news, Bristol-Myers’s share price fell $5.62, or 10.1%, to close at $49.81 on October 10, 2016.
Copyright © by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond, WA. All rights reserved. http://stockcharts.com/
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
On February 9, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, on behalf of persons and entities that acquired Bristol-Myers securities between a Class Period of January 27, 2015 and October 9, 2016, inclusive, against Bristol-Myers seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the class action complaint:
Throughout the Class Period, the [Bristol-Myers] Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about [Bristol-Myers] business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, [Bristol-Myers] Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that Bristol-Myers’ CheckMate-026 trial was more likely to fail than [Bristol-Myers] Defendants were representing; (2) that Bristol-Myers’ CheckMate-026 trial failed more severely than [Bristol-Myers] indicated it did in [its] August 5, 2016 announcements and disclosures; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, [Bristol-Myers’] statements about Bristol-Myers’ business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. (Emphasis added)
Bristol-Myers Squibb Shareholders and Investors
If you purchased, or otherwise acquired, Bristol-Myers securities between January 27, 2015 and October 9, 2016, both dates inclusive, and have questions or concerns about your potential legal rights, please contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Investors who bought BMY during the class period and suffered damages have until April 10, 2018 to file a motion with the Court to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Please note that no class has been certified in the above action, and until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain an attorney of your choice. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may serve together as “lead plaintiff.” Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Feb 12, 2018 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
SEC Investigation Finds That Traders and Salespeople Made False and Misleading Statements While Negotiating Sales of Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities (“CMBS”)
On February 12, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that the SEC instituted an enforcement action against Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and Deutsche Bank has agreed to repay more than $3.7 million, including $1.48 million ordered as disgorgement, to customers.
The SEC stated that its investigation found that traders and salespeople made false and misleading statements while negotiating sales of CMBS. According to the Deutsche Bank Securities SEC Order, customers overpaid for CMBS, because they were misled about the prices at which Deutsche Bank had originally purchased them. Deutsche Bank, according to the SEC’s order, failed to have compliance and surveillance procedures in place that were reasonably designed to prevent and detect the misconduct that consequently increased the firm’s profits on CMBS transactions to the detriment of its customers.
The SEC’s order finds supervisory failures by the former head trader of Deutsche Bank’s CMBS trading desk, Benjamin Solomon, a resident of Brooklyn, New York, who did not take appropriate action after becoming aware of false statements made to customers by traders under his supervision, including specific misrepresentations about the prices that Deutsche Bank paid for the CMBS.
Deutsche Bank, as part of its settlement, agreed to reimburse customers the full amount of firm profits earned on any CMBS trades in which a misrepresentation was made. According to a payment schedule in the order, Deutsche Bank will distribute more than $3.7 million pay a $750,000 penalty. Benjamin Solomon agreed to pay a $165,000 penalty and serve a 12-month suspension from the securities industry.
Deutsche Bank and Benjamin Solomon consented to the SEC’s order without admitting or denying the findings. The SEC’s order notes that the penalty amounts reflect substantial cooperation by Deutsche Bank and Solomon during the SEC’s investigation, including remedial efforts by the firm to improve its internal controls, compliance training, and surveillance efforts.
Source: SEC.gov
