2.2.0.7 false Litigation Summary 1090 - Disclosure - Litigation Summary true false false false 1 USD false false USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 USDPerShare Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Shares Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 2 Litigation Summary 0 nty_LitigationSummaryDisclosureAbstract nty false na duration No definition available. false false false false false true false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 false false false xbrli:stringItemType string No definition available. false 3 Litigation Summary 1 nty_LitigationDisclosureTextBlock nty false na duration Entire disclosure relating to class action lawsuits, regulatory inquiries and claims and complaints arising in the ordinary... false false false false false false false false false false false terselabel false 1 false false false false 0 0 <table style="font-size:10pt; font-family:'Times New Roman',times,serif;"> <tr> <td> 9. Litigation Summary         On May 11, 2010, a putative class-action, captioned John F. Hutchins v. NBTY, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, against the Company and certain officers, claiming that the defendants made allegedly false material statements, or concealed allegedly adverse material facts, for the purpose of causing members of the class to purchase NBTY stock at allegedly artificially inflated prices. To date, there has been no activity since the filing of the complaint. The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. At this time, however, no determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on the part of any of the defendants.         On July 22, 2010, a putative class-action, captioned Philip Gottlieb v. NBTY, Inc., et al, was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, against the Company, the members of its board of directors, The Carlyle Group and certain Carlyle-related entities (The Carlyle Group and the Carlyle-related entities, collectively "Carlyle"), challenging the Board of Directors' decision to sell the Company to Carlyle for the price of $55.00 per share. The complaint alleges that this price per share does not represent fair value for the Company and seeks to enjoin the anticipated sale and to invalidate certain related transactions. The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. The Company cannot presently predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on the part of any of the defendants. Prohormone Products         In March 2004, a putative class-action lawsuit, captioned Jerry Beidler v. MET-Rx U.S.A, Inc, was filed in New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, against MET-Rx U.S.A, Inc. ("Met-Rx"), a subsidiary of the Company, claiming that the advertising and marketing of certain prohormone supplements were false and misleading and that plaintiff and the putative class of New Jersey purchasers of these products were entitled to damages and injunctive relief. Because these allegations were virtually identical to allegations made in a putative nationwide class-action previously filed against Met-Rx in California (in an action styled Eric Ayala v. MET-Rx U.S.A, Inc. et. al.), we moved in 2004 to dismiss or stay the New Jersey action pending the outcome of the California action. The motion was granted, and the New Jersey action is stayed at this time. The California action against Met-Rx was dismissed in 2009. Nutrition Bars         Our subsidiary, Rexall Sundown, Inc. ("Rexall"), and certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a class-action lawsuit, captioned Jamie Pesek, et al. v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., et al., brought in California Superior Court, County of San Francisco in 2002 on behalf of all California consumers who bought various nutrition bars. Plaintiffs allege misbranding of nutrition bars and violations of California unfair competition statutes, misleading advertising and other similar causes of action. Plaintiffs seek restitution, legal fees and injunctive relief. We have defended this action vigorously. Since December 2007, with Rexall's and the other defendants' renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings pending, the Court has stayed the case for all purposes, pending rulings on relevant cases before the California Supreme Court. Although the California Supreme Court has resolved some of those cases, others remain pending as of this date. Accordingly, the case remains stayed. The Court held a case-management conference ("CMC") on August 5, 2009. At that time, the parties requested, and the Court agreed, to keep the stay in place for at least another nine months. The Court scheduled a subsequent CMC for February 25, 2010, but canceled that conference upon being informed by the parties that the California Supreme Court had not yet acted. The Court set another CMC for May 21, 2010, and instructed the parties to report back before that date as to the status of the cases before the California Supreme Court. By agreement of the parties, the May 21, 2010 CMC has been continued for nine months. The California Supreme Court still has not resolved the outstanding issues pending before it. Based upon the information currently available, no determination can be made at this time as to the final outcome of this case, nor can its materiality be accurately ascertained. Claims in the Ordinary Course         In addition to the foregoing, other regulatory inquiries, claims, suits and complaints (including product liability, intellectual property and California Proposition 65 claims) arise in the ordinary course of our business. We believe that such other inquiries, claims, suits and complaints would not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations, if adversely determined against us.</td></tr></table> 9. Litigation Summary         On May 11, 2010, a putative class-action, captioned John F. Hutchins v. false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock Entire disclosure relating to class action lawsuits, regulatory inquiries and claims and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business. No authoritative reference available. false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true