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) June 5, 2012

 

 

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

(Registrant’s 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):

 

¨

Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230425)

 

¨

Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

 

¨

Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

 

¨

Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))

 

 

 

---

Item 8.01

Other Events.

In the antitrust class actions consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under the caption “In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation,” on June 5, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed a decision of the District Court and ruled that the distributor plaintiffs, not the hospital plaintiffs, are direct purchasers entitled to pursue damages under the federal antitrust laws for certain sales of BD products. The previously reported settlement agreement entered into on April 27, 2009, by Becton, Dickinson and Company (“BD”) and certain purchaser plaintiffs (including BD’s distributors) was contingent on a ruling that the distributor plaintiffs are the direct purchasers entitled to pursue damages. The 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. The release would not cover potential class members that affirmatively opt out of the settlement. The settlement agreement remains in effect, subject to certain termination provisions, and must be approved by the district court.

---

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

 

Date: June 6, 2012