CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	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, product liabilities, intellectual property matters and employment-related matters resulting from the Company's business activities. The Company records accruals for outstanding legal matters when it believes it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal matters that could affect the amount of any accrual and developments that would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. If a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability. Currently, none of the Company's accruals for outstanding legal matters are material individually or in the aggregate to the Company's financial position. However, if the Company ultimately is required to make a payment in connection with an adverse outcome in any of the matters discussed below, it is possible that it could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company's contingencies are subject to substantial uncertainties, including for each such contingency the following, among other factors: (i) the procedural status of the case; (ii) whether the case has or may be certified as a class action suit; (iii) the outcome of preliminary motions; (iv) the impact of discovery; (v) whether there are significant factual issues to be determined or resolved; (vi) whether the proceedings involve a large number of parties and/or parties and claims in multiple jurisdictions or jurisdictions in which the relevant laws are complex or unclear; (vii) the extent of potential damages, which are often unspecified or indeterminate; and (viii) the status of settlement discussions, if any, and the settlement posture of the parties. Consequently, except as otherwise noted below with regard to a particular matter, the Company cannot predict with any reasonable certainty the timing or outcome of the legal matters described below, and the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss. 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 $4.0 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. Consequently, the Company may incur material product liability claims, which could increase its costs and adversely affect its reputation, revenue and operating income. DMAA / Aegeline Claims. Prior to December 2013, the Company sold products manufactured by third parties that contained derivatives from geranium known as 1.3-dimethylpentylamine/dimethylamylamine/13-dimethylamylamine, or "DMAA," which were recalled from the Company's stores in November 2013, and/or Aegeline, a compound extracted from bael trees. As of March 31, 2016, the Company was named in 28 personal injury lawsuits involving products containing DMAA and/or Aegeline. As a general matter, the proceedings associated with these personal injury cases, which generally seek indeterminate money damages, are in the early stages, and any losses that may arise from these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. The Company is contractually entitled to indemnification by its third-party vendors with regard to these matters, although the Company’s ability to obtain full recovery in respect of any such claims against it is dependent upon the creditworthiness of the vendors and/or their insurance coverage and the absence of any significant defenses available to its insurer. California Wage and Break Claims. In July 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. In October 2011, plaintiff filed an eight-count amended complaint alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations on behalf of sales associates and store managers. In January 2013, the Court conditionally certified a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") class with respect to one of Plaintiff's claims, and in November 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to certify a California class and granted the Company's motion for decertification of the FLSA class. In May 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the Company's alleged liability for non-compliant wage statements, which was granted in part and denied in part in September 2015. On February 5, 2016, the Company and attorneys representing the putative class agreed to class-wide settlements of the Brewer case and an additional, immaterial case raising similar claims, pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay up to $9.5 million in the aggregate, including attorneys’ fees and costs. Following a hearing on April 19, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement, which remains subject to final Court approval. As a result of this settlement, the Company recorded a charge of $6.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2015, in addition to $3.2 million previously accrued in the first quarter of 2015. On February 29, 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. The complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations. As of March 31, 2016, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements. Jason Olive v. General Nutrition Corp. In April 2012, Jason Olive filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for misappropriation of likeness in which he alleges that the Company continued to use his image in stores after the expiration of the license to do so in violation of common law and California statutes. Mr. Olive is seeking compensatory, punitive and statutory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. The trial in this matter is scheduled for July 11, 2016. As of March 31, 2016, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements. Oregon Attorney General. On October 22, 2015, the Attorney General for the State of Oregon sued General Nutrition Corporation in Multnomah County Circuit Court for alleged violations of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act, in connection with its sale in Oregon of certain third-party products. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these allegations. As any losses that may arise from this matter are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time, no liability has been accrued in the accompanying interim consolidated financial statements. Moreover, the Company does not anticipate that any such losses are likely to have a material impact on the Company, its business or results of operations. The Company is contractually entitled to indemnification and defense by its third-party vendors, which have accepted the Company’s tender request for defense and indemnification. Ultimately, however, the Company's ability to obtain full recovery in respect of any such claims against it is dependent upon the creditworthiness of its vendors and/or their insurance coverage and the absence of any significant defenses available to their insurers. Environmental Compliance In March 2008, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (the "DHEC") requested that the Company investigate contamination associated with historical activities at its South Carolina facility. These investigations have identified chlorinated solvent impacts in soils and groundwater that extend offsite from the facility. The Company entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Contract with the DHEC regarding the matter on September 24, 2012. Pursuant to such contract, the Company is completing additional investigations with the DHEC's approval. At this stage 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, therefore no liability is recorded. 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 operating expenditures to maintain compliance with environmental laws and regulations and environmental permits. The Company is also 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 the Company's properties or properties at which the Company's waste has been disposed. However, compliance with the provisions of national, state and local environmental laws and regulations has not had a material effect upon the Company's capital expenditures, earnings, financial position, liquidity or competitive position. 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, financial performance or cash flows. However, it is difficult to predict future liabilities and obligations, which could be material.

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, product liabilities, intellectual property matters and employment-related matters resulting from the Company's business activities.

The Company records accruals for outstanding legal matters when it believes it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal matters that could affect the amount of any accrual and developments that would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. If a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability. Currently, none of the Company's accruals for outstanding legal matters are material individually or in the aggregate to the Company's financial position. However, if the Company ultimately is required to make a payment in connection with an adverse outcome in any of the matters discussed below, it is possible that it could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company's contingencies are subject to substantial uncertainties, including for each such contingency the following, among other factors: (i) the procedural status of the case; (ii) whether the case has or may be certified as a class action suit; (iii) the outcome of preliminary motions; (iv) the impact of discovery; (v) whether there are significant factual issues to be determined or resolved; (vi) whether the proceedings involve a large number of parties and/or parties and claims in multiple jurisdictions or jurisdictions in which the relevant laws are complex or unclear; (vii) the extent of potential damages, which are often unspecified or indeterminate; and (viii) the status of settlement discussions, if any, and the settlement posture of the parties. Consequently, except as otherwise noted below with regard to a particular matter, the Company cannot predict with any reasonable certainty the timing or outcome of the legal matters described below, and the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss.

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 $4.0 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. Consequently, the Company may incur material product liability claims, which could increase its costs and adversely affect its reputation, revenue and operating income.

DMAA / Aegeline Claims. Prior to December 2013, the Company sold products manufactured by third parties that contained derivatives from geranium known as 1.3-dimethylpentylamine/dimethylamylamine/13-dimethylamylamine, or "DMAA," which were recalled from the Company's stores in November 2013, and/or Aegeline, a compound extracted from bael trees. As of March 31, 2016, the Company was named in 28 personal injury lawsuits involving products containing DMAA and/or Aegeline.

As a general matter, the proceedings associated with these personal injury cases, which generally seek indeterminate money damages, are in the early stages, and any losses that may arise from these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

The Company is contractually entitled to indemnification by its third-party vendors with regard to these matters, although the Company’s ability to obtain full recovery in respect of any such claims against it is dependent upon the creditworthiness of the vendors and/or their insurance coverage and the absence of any significant defenses available to its insurer.

California Wage and Break Claims. In July 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. In October 2011, plaintiff filed an eight-count amended complaint alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations on behalf of sales associates and store managers. In January 2013, the Court conditionally certified a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") class with respect to one of Plaintiff's claims, and in November 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to certify a California class and granted the Company's motion for decertification of the FLSA class. In May 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the Company's alleged liability for non-compliant wage statements, which was granted in part and denied in part in September 2015. On February 5, 2016, the Company and attorneys representing the putative class agreed to class-wide settlements of the Brewer case and an additional, immaterial case raising similar claims, pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay up to $9.5 million in the aggregate, including attorneys’ fees and costs. Following a hearing on April 19, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement, which remains subject to final Court approval. As a result of this settlement, the Company recorded a charge of $6.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2015, in addition to $3.2 million previously accrued in the first quarter of 2015.

On February 29, 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. The complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations. As of March 31, 2016, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements.

Jason Olive v. General Nutrition Corp. In April 2012, Jason Olive filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for misappropriation of likeness in which he alleges that the Company continued to use his image in stores after the expiration of the license to do so in violation of common law and California statutes. Mr. Olive is seeking compensatory, punitive and statutory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. The trial in this matter is scheduled for July 11, 2016. As of March 31, 2016, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements.

Oregon Attorney General. On October 22, 2015, the Attorney General for the State of Oregon sued General Nutrition Corporation in Multnomah County Circuit Court for alleged violations of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act, in connection with its sale in Oregon of certain third-party products. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these allegations. As any losses that may arise from this matter are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time, no liability has been accrued in the accompanying interim consolidated financial statements. Moreover, the Company does not anticipate that any such losses are likely to have a material impact on the Company, its business or results of operations. The Company is contractually entitled to indemnification and defense by its third-party vendors, which have accepted the Company’s tender request for defense and indemnification. Ultimately, however, the Company's ability to obtain full recovery in respect of any such claims against it is dependent upon the creditworthiness of its vendors and/or their insurance coverage and the absence of any significant defenses available to their insurers.

Environmental Compliance

In March 2008, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (the "DHEC") requested that the Company investigate contamination associated with historical activities at its South Carolina facility. These investigations have identified chlorinated solvent impacts in soils and groundwater that extend offsite from the facility. The Company entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Contract with the DHEC regarding the matter on September 24, 2012. Pursuant to such contract, the Company is completing additional investigations with the DHEC's approval. At this stage 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, therefore no liability is recorded.

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 operating expenditures to maintain compliance with environmental laws and regulations and environmental permits. The Company is also 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 the Company's properties or properties at which the Company's waste has been disposed. However, compliance with the provisions of national, state and local environmental laws and regulations has not had a material effect upon the Company's capital expenditures, earnings, financial position, liquidity or competitive position. 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, financial performance or cash flows. However, it is difficult to predict future liabilities and obligations, which could be material.