Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Becton, Dickinson and Company

12 Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments
Rental expense for all operating leases amounted to $63,400 in 2006, $59,000 in 2005, and $59,200 in 2004. Future minimum rental commitments on noncancelable leases are as follows: 2007-$48,100; 2008-$34,800; 2009-$24,200; 2010-$16,500; 2011-$11,400 and an aggregate of $10,600 thereafter.

     As of September 30, 2006, the Company has certain future purchase commitments aggregating to approximately $299,600, which will be expended over the next several years.

Contingencies
The Company is named as a defendant in five purported class action suits brought on behalf of direct purchasers of the Company’s products, such as distributors, alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for the Company’s products to the plaintiff and other purported class members. The cases filed are as follows: Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc., et. al. vs. Becton Dickinson and Company (Civil Action No. 05-1602, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on March 25, 2005; SAJ Distributors, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton Dickinson & Co. (Case 2:05-CV-04763-JD, United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on September 6, 2005; Dik Drug Company, et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and Company (Case No. 2:05-CV-04465, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on September 12, 2005; American Sales Company, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson & Co. (Case No. 2:05-CV-05212-CRM, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on October 3, 2005; and Park Surgical Co. Inc. et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and Company (Case 2:05-CV-05678-CMR, United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on October 26, 2005.

     The actions brought by Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company and Dik Drug Company in New Jersey have been consolidated under the caption “In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.”

     The Company is also named as a defendant in three purported class action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of the Company’s products, alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for the Company’s products to the plaintiff and other purported class members. The cases filed are as follows: Jabo’s Pharmacy, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson & Company (Case No. 2:05-CV-00162, United States District Court, Greenville, Tennessee) filed on June 7, 2005; Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et al v. Becton Dickinson and Company, (Case No. 2:06-CV-00174, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on January 17, 2006; and Medstar v. Becton Dickinson (Case No. 06-CV-03258-JLL (RJH), U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on May 18, 2006.

     The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action lawsuits seek monetary damages. All of the antitrust class action lawsuits have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) in federal court in New Jersey.

     On August 31, 2005, Daniels Sharpsmart filed suit against the Company, another manufacturer and three group purchasing organizations under the caption Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. v. Tyco International, (US) Inc., et. al. (Civil Action No. 505CV169, United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas). The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Company and the other defendants conspired to exclude the plaintiff from the sharps-collection market by entering into long-term contracts in violation of federal and state antitrust laws, and seeks monetary damages.

     On June 6, 2006, UltiMed, Inc., a Minnesota company, filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota (UltiMed, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company (06CV2266)). The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Company excluded the plaintiff from the market for home use insulin syringes by entering into anticompetitive contracts in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. The plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief.

     The Company, along with another manufacturer and several medical product distributors, is named as a defendant in three product liability lawsuits relating to healthcare workers who allegedly sustained accidental needlesticks, but have not become infected with any disease. Generally, these actions allege that healthcare workers have sustained needlesticks using hollow-bore needle devices manufactured by the Company and, as a result, require medical testing, counseling and/or treatment. In some cases, these actions additionally allege that the healthcare workers have sustained mental anguish. Plaintiffs seek money damages in all of these actions. The Company had previously been named as a defendant in eight similar suits relating to healthcare workers who allegedly sustained accidental needlesticks, each of which has either been dismissed with prejudice or voluntarily withdrawn. Regarding the three pending suits:

  • In Ohio, Grant vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. 98CVB075616, Franklin County Court), On September 21, 2006, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of class certification. The matter has been remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether the class can be redefined.
  • In Oklahoma and South Carolina, cases have been filed on behalf of an unspecified number of healthcare workers seeking class action certification under the laws of these states in state court in Oklahoma, under the caption Palmer vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. CJ-98-685, Sequoyah County District Court), filed on October 27, 1998, and in state court in South Carolina, under the captionBales vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. 98-CP-40-4343, Richland County Court of Common Pleas), filed on November 25, 1998.

     The Company continues to oppose class action certification in these cases, including pursuing all appropriate rights of appeal.

     The Company, along with a number of other manufacturers, was named as a defendant in approximately 524 product liability lawsuits in various state and Federal courts related to natural rubber latex gloves which the Company ceased manufacturing in 1995. Cases pending in Federal court are being coordinated under the matter In re Latex Gloves Products Liability Litigation (MDL Docket No. 1148) in Philadelphia, and analogous procedures have been implemented in the state courts of California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York. Generally, these actions allege that medical personnel have suffered allergic reactions ranging from skin irritation to anaphylaxis as a result of exposure to medical gloves containing natural rubber latex. Since the inception of this litigation, 465 of these cases have been closed with no liability to the Company, and 46 cases have been settled for an aggregate de minimis amount.

     On August 8, 2005, the Company received a subpoena issued by the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, which seeks documents and information relating to the Company’s participation as a member of Healthcare Research & Development Institute, LLC (“HRDI”), a healthcare trade organization. The subpoena indicates that it was issued as part of an investigation into possible violations of the antitrust laws. On August 21, 2006, the Company received a subpoena issued by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois which seeks documents and information relating to the Company’s participation as a member of HRDI. The subpoena indicates that it was issued as part of an investigation into possible violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, Charitable Trust Act, and Solicitation for Charity Act. An independent member of the Company’s board of directors, Gary Mecklenburg, also served as a member and the non-executive chairman of HRDI until November 5, 2006. The Company believes that its participation in HRDI complies fully with the law and intends to cooperate fully in responding to these subpoenas.

     On May 28, 2004, Therasense, Inc. (“Therasense”) filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case Number: C 04-02123 WDB) asserting that the Company’s blood glucose monitoring products infringe certain Therasense patents. On August 10, 2004, in response to a motion filed by Therasense in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the court transferred to the court in California an action previously filed by the Company against Therasense requesting a declaratory judgment that the Company’s products do not infringe the Therasense patents and that the Therasense patents are invalid.

     The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to each of the above-mentioned suits pending against the Company and is engaged in a vigorous defense of each of these matters.

     The Company is also involved both as a plaintiff and a defendant in other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business.

     The Company is a party to a number of Federal proceedings in the United States brought under the Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as “Superfund,” and similar state laws. For all sites, there are other potentially responsible parties that may be jointly or severally liable to pay all cleanup costs.

     Given the uncertain nature of litigation generally, the Company is not able in all cases to estimate the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of the litigation to which the Company is a party. In accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, the Company establishes accruals to the extent probable future losses are estimable (in the case of environmental matters, without considering possible third-party recoveries). In view of the uncertainties discussed above, the Company could incur charges in excess of any currently established accruals and, to the extent available, excess liability insurance. In the opinion of management, any such future charges, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations and consolidated net cash flows in the period or periods in which they are recorded or paid.