COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

        The Company is engaged in various legal actions, claims and proceedings arising in the normal course of business, including claims related to breach of contracts, products liabilities, intellectual property matters and employment-related matters resulting from the Company's business activities. As with most actions such as these, an estimation of any possible and/or ultimate liability cannot always be determined. The Company continues to assess the requirement to account for additional contingencies in accordance with the standard on contingencies. If the Company is required to make a payment in connection with an adverse outcome in these matters, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

        As a manufacturer and retailer of nutritional supplements and other consumer products that are ingested by consumers or applied to their bodies, the Company has been and is currently subjected to various product liability claims. Although the effects of these claims to date have not been material to the Company, it is possible that current and future product liability claims could have a material adverse effect on its business or financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company currently maintains product liability insurance with a deductible/retention of $3.0 million per claim with an aggregate cap on retained loss of $10.0 million. The Company typically seeks and has obtained contractual indemnification from most parties that supply raw materials for its products or that manufacture or market products it sells. The Company also typically seeks to be added, and has been added, as an additional insured under most of such parties' insurance policies. The Company is also entitled to indemnification by Numico for certain losses arising from claims related to products containing ephedra or Kava Kava sold prior to December 5, 2003. However, any such indemnification or insurance is limited by its terms and any such indemnification, as a practical matter, is limited to the creditworthiness of the indemnifying party and its insurer, and the absence of significant defenses by the insurers. The Company may incur material products liability claims, which could increase its costs and adversely affect its reputation, revenues and operating income.

        Hydroxycut Claims.    On May 1, 2009, the FDA issued a warning on several Hydroxycut-branded products manufactured by Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc. ("Iovate"). The FDA warning was based on 23 reports of liver injuries from consumers who claimed to have used the products between 2002 and 2009. As a result, Iovate voluntarily recalled 14 Hydroxycut-branded products.

        Following the recall, the Company was named, among other defendants, in approximately 85 lawsuits related to Hydroxycut-branded products in 13 states. Iovate previously accepted the Company's tender request for defense and indemnification under its purchasing agreement with the Company and, as such, Iovate has accepted the Company's request for defense and indemnification in the Hydroxycut matters. The Company's ability to obtain full recovery in respect of any claims against the Company in connection with products manufactured by Iovate under the indemnity is dependent on Iovate's insurance coverage, the creditworthiness of its insurer, and the absence of significant defenses by such insurer. To the extent the Company is not fully compensated by Iovate's insurer, it can seek recovery directly from Iovate. The Company's ability to fully recover such amounts may be limited by the creditworthiness of Iovate.

        As of December 31, 2011, there were 75 pending lawsuits related to Hydroxycut in which the Company had been named: 69 individual, largely personal injury claims and six putative class action cases, generally inclusive of claims of consumer fraud, misrepresentation, strict liability and breach of warranty. Any liabilities that may arise from these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

        By court order dated October 6, 2009, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated pretrial proceedings of many of the pending actions in the Southern District of California (In re: Hydroxycut Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2087).

        Pro-Hormone/Androstenedione Cases.    The Company is currently defending three lawsuits (the "Andro Actions") in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania relating to the sale by the Company of certain nutritional products, between 1999 and 2004, alleged to contain the ingredients commonly known as Androstenedione, Androstenediol, Norandrostenedione, and Norandrostenediol (collectively, "Andro Products"). In each of the Andro Actions, plaintiffs sought, or are seeking, to certify a class and obtain damages on behalf of the class representatives and all those similarly-situated who purchased from the Company certain nutritional supplements alleged to contain one or more Andro Products. During the first quarter of 2011, the sole Andro Action filed in California was settled for an immaterial amount, pending approval by the court. Unlike the other states in which the plaintiffs reside, California law prohibits one of the ingredients; therefore, the Company does not believe that the outcome in California provides a basis for determining the potential outcome of the other Andro Actions. As any liabilities that may arise from these other Andro Actions are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time, no liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements.

        Romero Claim.    On April 27, 2009, plaintiff J.C. Romero, a professional baseball player, filed a complaint against, among others, the Company, in Superior Court of New Jersey (Law Division/ Camden County). Plaintiff alleges that he purchased from a GNC store and consumed 6-OXO Extreme, which is manufactured by a third party, and in August 2008, was alleged to have tested positive for a banned substance. Plaintiff served a 50 game suspension imposed by Major League Baseball. The seven count complaint asserts, among other things, claims for negligence, strict liability, misrepresentation, breach implied warranty and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and seeks unspecified monetary damages. The Company tendered the claim to the insurance company of the franchisee whose GNC store sold and allegedly misrepresented the product. On or about October 9, 2009, the Company answered plaintiff's first amended complaint and cross-claimed against co-defendants Proviant Technologies and Ergopharm. In December 2011, the parties reached a confidential, immaterial settlement through mediation.

        California Wage and Break Claim.    On November 4, 2008, 98 plaintiffs filed individual claims against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, which was removed to the U.S. District Court, Central District of California on February 17, 2009. Each of the plaintiffs had previously been a member of a purported class in a lawsuit filed against the Company in 2007 and resolved in September 2009. The plaintiffs allege that they were not provided all of the rest and meal periods to which they were entitled under California law, and further allege that the Company failed to pay them split shift and overtime compensation to which they were entitled under California law. Discovery in this case is ongoing and the Company is vigorously defending these matters. The court has developed a mediation procedure for handling the pending claims and has ordered the parties to mediate with small groups of plaintiffs and stayed the case as to the plaintiffs not participating in the mediations. The first of the mediation sessions occurred February 10, 2010 and March 4, 2010 and did not result in any settlements. Any liabilities that may arise from these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

        On July 21, 2011, Charles Brewer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in federal court, alleging state and federal wage and hour claims (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 11CV3587). On October 7, 2011, plaintiff filed an eight-count amended complaint alleging, inter alia, meal, rest break and overtime violations. On October 21, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and on December 14, 2011 the court dismissed count six (the federal overtime claim) giving plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the complaint within thirty days. Any liabilities that may arise from these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

        FLSA Matters.    On June 29, 2010, Dominic Vargas and Anne Hickok, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated sued General Nutrition Corporation and the Company in federal court (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:05-mc-02025). The two-count complaint alleges, generally, that plaintiffs were required to perform work on an uncompensated basis and that the Company failed to pay overtime for such work. The second count of the complaint alleges the Company retaliated against plaintiffs when they complained about the overtime policy. The Company filed a motion to dismiss count II of the Complaint and on January 6, 2011 the court granted the motion. In fall, 2011, plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. The motion has been fully briefed and is pending before the court. Any liabilities that may arise from this case are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time, no liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements.

        On July 16, 2010, a second, similar wage and hour complaint was filed by Jennifer Mell and Jose Munoz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against GNC Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 10CV945). The complaint alleges that plaintiffs' job duties were non-exempt in nature and that they were misclassified as exempt employees. The Company filed a motion to dismiss which was granted on November 9, 2010. Plaintiffs filed an appeal on December 9, 2010. On February 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed a document with the court to dismiss the appeal. As of December 31, 2011, this complaint is closed and no liability was accrued or paid during 2011.

Commitments

        The Company maintains certain purchase commitments with various vendors to ensure its operational needs are fulfilled. As of December 31, 2011, the future purchase commitments consisted of $3.5 million of advertising commitments. Other commitments related to the Company's business operations cover varying periods of time and are not significant. All of these commitments are expected to be fulfilled with no adverse consequences to the Company's operations of financial condition.

Environmental Compliance

        In March 2008, the Department of Health and Environmental Control ("DHEC") requested that the Company investigate contamination associated with historical activities at the Company's South Carolina facility. These investigations have identified chlorinated solvent impacts in soils and groundwater that extend offsite from the Company's facility. The Company is awaiting DHEC approval of the scope of additional investigations in order to understand the extent of these impacts and develop appropriate remedial measures for DHEC approval. At this state of the investigation, however, it is not possible to estimate the timing and extent of any remedial action that may be required, the ultimate cost of remediation, or the amount of the Company's potential liability.

        In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to numerous federal, state, local, and foreign environmental and health and safety laws and regulations governing its operations, including the handling, transportation, and disposal of the Company's non-hazardous and hazardous substances and wastes, as well as emissions and discharges from its operations into the environment, including discharges to air, surface water, and groundwater. Failure to comply with such laws and regulations could result in costs for remedial actions, penalties, or the imposition of other liabilities. New laws, changes in existing laws or the interpretation thereof, or the development of new facts or changes in their processes could also cause the Company to incur additional capital and operation expenditures to maintain compliance with environmental laws and regulations and environmental permits. The Company also is subject to laws and regulations that impose liability and cleanup responsibility for releases of hazardous substances into the environment without regard to fault or knowledge about the condition or action causing the liability. Under certain of these laws and regulations, such liabilities can be imposed for cleanup of previously owned or operated properties, or for properties to which substances or wastes that were sent in connection with current or former operations at its facilities. The presence of contamination from such substances or wastes could also adversely affect the Company's ability to sell or lease its properties, or to use them as collateral for financing. From time to time, the Company has incurred costs and obligations for correcting environmental and health and safety noncompliance matters and for remediation at or relating to certain of its properties or properties at which its waste has been disposed. The Company believes it has complied with, and is currently complying with, its environmental obligations pursuant to environmental and health and safety laws and regulations and that any liabilities for noncompliance will not have a material adverse effect on its business or financial performance. However, it is difficult to predict future liabilities and obligations, which could be material.