UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Date
of Report (Date of earliest event reported) October 6, 2010
BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
New Jersey
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)
|
|
|
001-4802
|
|
22-0760120 |
|
(Commission File Number)
|
|
(IRS Employer Identification No.) |
|
|
|
1 Becton Drive, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey
|
|
07417-1880 |
|
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
|
|
(Zip Code) |
(201) 847-6800
(Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code)
N/A
(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)
Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K Filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the
filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instruction
A.2. below):
o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
Item 8.01 Other Events.
As previously reported, on April 27, 2009,
Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) entered into a settlement agreement with certain purchaser plaintiffs
(including BDs distributors) in the antitrust class actions consolidated in the United States District Court for
the District of New
Jersey under the caption In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation. The settlement agreement
provided for, among other things, the payment by BD of $45 million in exchange for a release by all potential class
members of the direct purchaser claims under federal antitrust laws related to the products and acts enumerated in the
complaint, and a dismissal of the case with prejudice, insofar as it relates to direct purchaser claims. On September
30, 2010, the court issued an order denying a motion to approve the settlement agreement, ruling that the hospital plaintiffs,
and not the distributor plaintiffs, are the direct purchasers entitled to pursue damages under the federal antitrust laws for
certain sales of BD products. The settlement agreement currently remains in effect, subject to certain termination provisions,
and the courts order may be subject to appellate review. Accordingly, BD is not adjusting the provision it recognized for the
settlement agreement in the second quarter of fiscal year 2009.