9.	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company is subject to government regulations pertaining to product formulation, labeling and packaging, product claims and advertising, and the Company's direct selling system. The Company is also subject to the jurisdiction of numerous foreign tax and customs authorities. Any assertions or determination that either the Company or the Company's sales force is not in compliance with existing statutes, laws, rules or regulations could have a material adverse effect on the Company's operations. In addition, in any country or jurisdiction, the adoption of new statutes, laws, rules or regulations or changes in the interpretation of existing statutes, laws, rules or regulations could have a material adverse effect on the Company and its operations. Although management believes that the Company is in compliance in all material respects with the statutes, laws, rules and regulations of every jurisdiction in which it operates, no assurance can be given that the Company's compliance with applicable statutes, laws, rules and regulations will not be challenged by foreign authorities or that such challenges will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations or cash flows. The Company and its Subsidiaries are defendants in litigation and proceedings involving various matters. Except as noted below, in the opinion of the Company's management, based upon advice of its counsel handling such litigation and proceedings, adverse outcomes, if any, will not likely result in a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company is subject to regular audits by federal, state and foreign tax authorities. These audits may result in additional tax liabilities. The Company believes it has appropriately provided for income taxes for all years. Several factors drive the calculation of its tax reserves. Some of these factors include: (i) the expiration of various statutes of limitations; (ii) changes in tax law and regulations; (iii) issuance of tax rulings; and (iv) settlements with tax authorities. Changes in any of these factors may result in adjustments to the Company's reserves, which would impact its reported financial results.

The Company is currently involved in a dispute related to customs assessments by Yokohama Customs on several of the Company's products for the period of October 2006 through September 2009 in connection with post-importation audits, as well as the disputed portion of the Company's import duties from October 2009 to the present, which the Company has or will hold in bond or pay under protest. Additional assessments related to any prior period are barred by applicable statutes of limitations. The aggregate amount of these assessments and disputed duties was approximately 4.3 billion Japanese yen as of March 31, 2015 (approximately $35.8 million), net of recovery of consumption taxes. The issue in this case is whether a United States entity utilizing a commissionaire agent in Japan to import its products can use the manufacturer's invoice pursuant to the transaction value method under the World Trade Organization Customs Valuation Agreement or whether it must use one of the alternative valuation methods provided in that agreement, and, if an alternative method must be used, what the allowable deductions would be in determining the proper valuation. Following the Company's review of the assessments and after consulting with the Company's legal and customs advisors, the Company believes that use of the manufacturer's invoice is the appropriate valuation method and that the additional assessments are improper and are not supported by applicable customs laws because they are based on an alternative valuation method. The Company filed letters of protest with the applicable Customs authorities, which were rejected. The Company then appealed the matter to the Ministry of Finance in Japan. In the second quarter of 2011, the Ministry of Finance in Japan denied the Company's administrative appeal. The Company disagrees with the Ministry of Finance's administrative decision. The Company is now pursuing the matter in Tokyo District Court, which is not required to give deference to the decision made by the Ministry of Finance and which the Company believes will provide a more independent determination of the matter. We currently anticipate the Tokyo District Court will close the proceedings and render a decision sometime this year. In addition, the Company is currently being required to post a bond or make a deposit to secure any additional duties that may be due and payable on current imports. Because the Company believes that the assessment of higher duties by the customs authorities is an improper application of the regulations, the Company is currently expensing the portion of the duties the Company believes is supported under applicable customs law, and recording the additional deposit or payment as a receivable within long-term assets on its consolidated financial statements. If the Company is unsuccessful in recovering the amounts assessed and paid, the Company will record a non-cash expense for the full amount of the disputed assessments. The Company anticipates that additional disputed duties will be limited going forward as the Company purchases a majority of the affected products in Japan from a Japanese company that purchases and imports the products from the manufacturers.

The Company is also currently being sued in a purported class action lawsuit and derivative claim relating to negative media and regulatory scrutiny regarding the Company's business in Mainland China and the associated decline in the Company's stock price. Beginning in January 2014, six purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. On May 1, 2014, the court consolidated the various purported class actions, appointed State-Boston Retirement System as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and appointed the law firm Labaton Sucharow as lead counsel for the purported class in the consolidated action. On June 30, 2014, a consolidated class action complaint was filed. The Company sought to dismiss the case; that motion was denied by an order issued on February 26, 2015. The consolidated class action complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of certain of the Company's stockholders under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against Nu Skin Enterprises, Ritch N. Wood, and M. Truman Hunt and to assert claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Messrs. Wood and Hunt. The consolidated class action complaint alleges that, inter alia, the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its sales operations in and financial results derived from Mainland China, including purportedly operating a pyramid scheme based on illegal multi-level marketing activities. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the consolidated class action complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

In addition, beginning in February 2014, five purported shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. On May 1, 2014, the court issued an order consolidating the derivative actions, appointing plaintiffs Amos. C. Acoff and Analisa Suderov as co-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action, and appointing the law firms Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and The Weiser Law Firm, P.C. as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the consolidated action. On July 25, 2014, a consolidated derivative complaint was filed. The Company has moved to dismiss or stay the case; plaintiffs have opposed the motion. A hearing on that motion is scheduled for May 28, 2015. The consolidated derivative complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of Nu Skin Enterprises for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duties for disseminating false and misleading information, failing to maintain adequate internal controls, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement against M. Truman Hunt, Ritch N. Wood, Steven J. Lund, Nevin N. Andersen, Neil Offen, Daniel W. Campbell, Andrew W. Lipman, Patricia A. Negrón, Thomas R. Pisano, and nominally against Nu Skin Enterprises. The consolidated derivative complaint also purports to assert claims on behalf of Nu Skin Enterprises for breach of fiduciary duty for insider selling and misappropriation of information against Messrs. Wood, Lund and Campbell. The consolidated derivative complaint alleges that, inter alia, the defendants allowed materially false and misleading statements to be made regarding their sales operations in and financial results derived from Mainland China, including purportedly operating a pyramid scheme based on illegal multi-level marketing activities, and that certain defendants sold common stock on the basis of material, adverse non-public information.

The purported class action lawsuit and derivative claim, or others filed alleging similar facts, could result in monetary or other penalties that may materially affect the Company's operating results and financial condition.