CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES 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 liability matters, 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. 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. If the Company ultimately is required to make any payments 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. 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 per policy year. 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. 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. Litigation 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 September 30, 2018, the Company was named in 27 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. 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 class action complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations for which indeterminate money damages for wages, penalties, interest, and legal fees are sought. In June 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's Motion for Decertification. In August 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the class action claims alleging overtime violations. As of September 30, 2018, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the remaining class action claims asserted in this action, and to seek decertification as to some or all of the claims following additional discovery. It is expected that the trial will occur in 2019. Pennsylvania Fluctuating Workweek. On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller commenced a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff asserted a claim against the Company for a purported violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), challenging the Company's utilization of the "fluctuating workweek" method to calculate overtime compensation, on behalf of all employees who worked for the Company in Pennsylvania and who were paid according to the fluctuating workweek method. In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use of the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA. In September 2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the class in an immaterial amount, which has been recorded as a charge in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for an award of attorney's fees, costs and incentive payment. The court awarded an immaterial amount in legal fees. The Company appealed from the adverse judgment and the award of attorney's fees. On December 22, 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the Company correctly determined the "regular rate" by dividing weekly compensation by all hours worked (rather than 40), but held that the regular rate must be multiplied by 1.5 (rather than 0.5) to determine the amount of overtime owed. Taking accumulated interest into account, the net result of the Superior Court's decision was to reduce the Company's liability by an immaterial amount, which has been reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company filed a petition for appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on January 22, 2018. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the Company's petition for appeal and the Company filed its appellant’s brief on August 27, 2018. The appellees filed their brief on September 26, 2018. It is anticipated that oral argument will occur in early to mid-2019. 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 began on July 20, 2016 and concluded on August 8, 2016. The jury awarded plaintiff immaterial amounts for actual damages and emotional distress damages, which are accrued in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. The jury refused to award plaintiff any of the profits he sought to disgorge, or punitive damages. The court entered judgment in the case on October 14, 2016. In addition to the verdict, the Company and Mr. Olive sought attorneys' fees and other costs from the Court. The Court refused to award attorney's fees to either side but awarded plaintiff an immaterial amount for costs. Plaintiff has appealed the judgment, and separately, the order denying attorney's fees. The Company has cross-appealed the judgment and the Court's denial of attorney fees. Argument occurred in October 2018. On November 2, 2018, the Court affirmed the trail court's decision in part and reversed in part, reversing the denial of Mr. Olive's motion for attorneys' fees and remanding the matter to the trial court for further proceedings regarding his attorneys' fees and costs. Oregon Attorney General. On October 22, 2015, the Attorney General for the State of Oregon sued GNC 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 is vigorously defending itself against these allegations. Along with its Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses, the Company filed a counterclaim for declaratory relief, asking the court to make certain rulings in favor of the Company, and adding USPlabs, LLC and SK Laboratories as counterclaim defendants. In March 2018, the Oregon Attorney General filed a motion for summary judgment relating to its first claim for relief, which the Company contested. The Company filed a cross motion for summary judgment on the first claim for relief, which the Oregon Attorney General contested. Following oral argument in August 2018, the Court denied the State’s motion for summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion for summary judgment. The parties are in the process of exchanging discovery. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in September 2019. 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 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. 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. Holland and Barrett License Litigation. On September 18, 2014, the Company's wholly-owned affiliate General Nutrition Investment Company ("GNIC") commenced proceedings in the U.K. High Court to determine if the license agreement from March 2003 between GNIC and Holland & Barrett International Ltd and Health and Diet Centers Ltd. (“Defendants”) was validly terminated. GNIC alleged that termination of the entire agreement was warranted due to several material breaches by Defendants, and that the agreement should be terminated related to five licensed GNC trademarks for lack of use for more than five years. On April 7, 2017, the Court issued its judgment that found that GNIC's notice of termination was invalid and while there were several breaches of the agreement, none were sufficiently material to justify termination. Under U.K. procedural rules, GNIC is required to pay some portion of Defendant’s legal costs. As a result, the Company recorded a charge of $2.1 million in the first quarter of 2017 and subsequently reached an agreement with the Defendants in relation to costs. The Defendants appealed part of the Court's judgment concerning findings in relation to the licensed GNIC trademarks, and that appeal was heard at the U.K.'s Court of Appeal in June 2018. In July 2018, the Court found in favor of the Defendants and GNIC was ordered to pay an immaterial amount for Defendants' costs related to the appeal. E-Commerce Pricing Matters. In April 2016, Jenna Kaskorkis, et al. filed a complaint against General Nutrition Centers, Inc. followed by similar cases brought forth by Ashley Gennock in May 2016 and Kenneth Harrison in December 2016. Plaintiffs allege that the Company's promotional pricing on its website was misleading and did not fairly represent promotions based on average retail prices over a trended period of time being consistent with prices advertised as promotional. The Company attended a mediation with counsel for all plaintiffs and reached a tentative agreement in the third quarter of 2017 on many of the key terms of a settlement. The matters have been effectively stayed while the parties remain in discussions. The Company currently expects any settlement to be in a form that does not require the recording of a contingent liability, except an immaterial amount the Company has accrued in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. Government Regulation In November 2013, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") for information related to its investigation of a third party product vendor, USPlabs, LLC. The Company fully cooperated with the investigation of the vendor and the related products, all of which were discontinued in 2013. In December 2016, the Company reached agreement with the DOJ in connection with the Company's cooperation, which agreement acknowledges the Company relied on the representations and written guarantees of USPlabs and the Company's representation that it did not knowingly sell products not in compliance with the FDCA. Under the agreement, which includes an immaterial payment to the federal government, the Company will take a number of actions to broaden industry-wide knowledge of prohibited ingredients and improve compliance by vendors of third party products. These actions are in keeping with the leadership role the Company has taken in setting industry quality and compliance standards, and the Company's commitment over the course of the agreement (60 months) to support a combination of its and the industry's initiatives. Some of these actions include maintaining and continuously updating a list of restricted ingredients that will be prohibited from inclusion in any products that are sold by the Company. Vendors selling products to the Company for the sale of such products by the Company will be required to warrant that the products sold do not contain any of these restricted ingredients. In addition, the Company will develop and maintain a list of ingredients that the Company believes comply with the applicable provisions of the FDCA. 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 has completed additional investigations with the DHEC's approval. The Company installed and began operating a pilot vapor extraction system under a portion of the facility in the second half of 2016, which was an immaterial cost to the Company, with DHEC's approval to assess the effectiveness of such a remedial system. After an initial period of monitoring, in October of 2017, the DHEC approved a work plan for extended monitoring of such system and the contamination into 2021. The Company will continue to consult with the DHEC on the next steps in the work after their review of the results of the extended monitoring is complete. At this stage of the investigation, however, it is not possible to estimate the timing and extent of any additional remedial action that may be required, the ultimate cost of remediation, or the amount of the Company's potential liability. Therefore, no liability has been recorded in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements. 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

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 liability matters, 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.

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. If the Company ultimately is required to make any payments 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.

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 per policy year. 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. 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.

Litigation

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 September 30, 2018, the Company was named in 27 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. 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 class action complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations for which indeterminate money damages for wages, penalties, interest, and legal fees are sought. In June 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's Motion for Decertification. In August 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the class action claims alleging overtime violations. As of September 30, 2018, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the remaining class action claims asserted in this action, and to seek decertification as to some or all of the claims following additional discovery. It is expected that the trial will occur in 2019.

Pennsylvania Fluctuating Workweek. On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller commenced a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff asserted a claim against the Company for a purported violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), challenging the Company's utilization of the "fluctuating workweek" method to calculate overtime compensation, on behalf of all employees who worked for the Company in Pennsylvania and who were paid according to the fluctuating workweek method. In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use of the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA. In September 2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the class in an immaterial amount, which has been recorded as a charge in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for an award of attorney's fees, costs and incentive payment. The court awarded an immaterial amount in legal fees. The Company appealed from the adverse judgment and the award of attorney's fees. On December 22, 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the Company correctly determined the "regular rate" by dividing weekly compensation by all hours worked (rather than 40), but held that the regular rate must be multiplied by 1.5 (rather than 0.5) to determine the amount of overtime owed. Taking accumulated interest into account, the net result of the Superior Court's decision was to reduce the Company's liability by an immaterial amount, which has been reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company filed a petition for appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on January 22, 2018. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the Company's petition for appeal and the Company filed its appellant’s brief on August 27, 2018. The appellees filed their brief on September 26, 2018. It is anticipated that oral argument will occur in early to mid-2019.

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 began on July 20, 2016 and concluded on August 8, 2016. The jury awarded plaintiff immaterial amounts for actual damages and emotional distress damages, which are accrued in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. The jury refused to award plaintiff any of the profits he sought to disgorge, or punitive damages. The court entered judgment in the case on October 14, 2016. In addition to the verdict, the Company and Mr. Olive sought attorneys' fees and other costs from the Court. The Court refused to award attorney's fees to either side but awarded plaintiff an immaterial amount for costs. Plaintiff has appealed the judgment, and separately, the order denying attorney's fees. The Company has cross-appealed the judgment and the Court's denial of attorney fees. Argument occurred in October 2018. On November 2, 2018, the Court affirmed the trail court's decision in part and reversed in part, reversing the denial of Mr. Olive's motion for attorneys' fees and remanding the matter to the trial court for further proceedings regarding his attorneys' fees and costs.

Oregon Attorney General. On October 22, 2015, the Attorney General for the State of Oregon sued GNC 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 is vigorously defending itself against these allegations. Along with its Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses, the Company filed a counterclaim for declaratory relief, asking the court to make certain rulings in favor of the Company, and adding USPlabs, LLC and SK Laboratories as counterclaim defendants. In March 2018, the Oregon Attorney General filed a motion for summary judgment relating to its first claim for relief, which the Company contested. The Company filed a cross motion for summary judgment on the first claim for relief, which the Oregon Attorney General contested. Following oral argument in August 2018, the Court denied the State’s motion for summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion for summary judgment. The parties are in the process of exchanging discovery. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in September 2019.

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 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. 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.

Holland and Barrett License Litigation. On September 18, 2014, the Company's wholly-owned affiliate General Nutrition Investment Company ("GNIC") commenced proceedings in the U.K. High Court to determine if the license agreement from March 2003 between GNIC and Holland & Barrett International Ltd and Health and Diet Centers Ltd. (“Defendants”) was validly terminated. GNIC alleged that termination of the entire agreement was warranted due to several material breaches by Defendants, and that the agreement should be terminated related to five licensed GNC trademarks for lack of use for more than five years. On April 7, 2017, the Court issued its judgment that found that GNIC's notice of termination was invalid and while there were several breaches of the agreement, none were sufficiently material to justify termination. Under U.K. procedural rules, GNIC is required to pay some portion of Defendant’s legal costs. As a result, the Company recorded a charge of $2.1 million in the first quarter of 2017 and subsequently reached an agreement with the Defendants in relation to costs. The Defendants appealed part of the Court's judgment concerning findings in relation to the licensed GNIC trademarks, and that appeal was heard at the U.K.'s Court of Appeal in June 2018. In July 2018, the Court found in favor of the Defendants and GNIC was ordered to pay an immaterial amount for Defendants' costs related to the appeal.

E-Commerce Pricing Matters. In April 2016, Jenna Kaskorkis, et al. filed a complaint against General Nutrition Centers, Inc. followed by similar cases brought forth by Ashley Gennock in May 2016 and Kenneth Harrison in December 2016. Plaintiffs allege that the Company's promotional pricing on its website was misleading and did not fairly represent promotions based on average retail prices over a trended period of time being consistent with prices advertised as promotional. The Company attended a mediation with counsel for all plaintiffs and reached a tentative agreement in the third quarter of 2017 on many of the key terms of a settlement. The matters have been effectively stayed while the parties remain in discussions. The Company currently expects any settlement to be in a form that does not require the recording of a contingent liability, except an immaterial amount the Company has accrued in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.

Government Regulation

In November 2013, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") for information related to its investigation of a third party product vendor, USPlabs, LLC. The Company fully cooperated with the investigation of the vendor and the related products, all of which were discontinued in 2013. In December 2016, the Company reached agreement with the DOJ in connection with the Company's cooperation, which agreement acknowledges the Company relied on the representations and written guarantees of USPlabs and the Company's representation that it did not knowingly sell products not in compliance with the FDCA. Under the agreement, which includes an immaterial payment to the federal government, the Company will take a number of actions to broaden industry-wide knowledge of prohibited ingredients and improve compliance by vendors of third party products. These actions are in keeping with the leadership role the Company has taken in setting industry quality and compliance standards, and the Company's commitment over the course of the agreement (60 months) to support a combination of its and the industry's initiatives. Some of these actions include maintaining and continuously updating a list of restricted ingredients that will be prohibited from inclusion in any products that are sold by the Company. Vendors selling products to the Company for the sale of such products by the Company will be required to warrant that the products sold do not contain any of these restricted ingredients. In addition, the Company will develop and maintain a list of ingredients that the Company believes comply with the applicable provisions of the FDCA.

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 has completed additional investigations with the DHEC's approval. The Company installed and began operating a pilot vapor extraction system under a portion of the facility in the second half of 2016, which was an immaterial cost to the Company, with DHEC's approval to assess the effectiveness of such a remedial system. After an initial period of monitoring, in October of 2017, the DHEC approved a work plan for extended monitoring of such system and the contamination into 2021. The Company will continue to consult with the DHEC on the next steps in the work after their review of the results of the extended monitoring is complete. At this stage of the investigation, however, it is not possible to estimate the timing and extent of any additional remedial action that may be required, the ultimate cost of remediation, or the amount of the Company's potential liability. Therefore, no liability has been recorded in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements.

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.