Litigation Summary

9 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Litigation Summary

Litigation Summary

4. Litigation Summary

Stock Purchases

        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 NBTY and certain current and former officers, claiming that the defendants made false material statements, or concealed adverse material facts, for the purpose of causing members of the class to purchase NBTY stock at allegedly artificially inflated prices. An amended complaint, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, was served on February 1, 2011. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 18, 2011 and that motion was denied on March 6, 2012. Discovery is ongoing. We believe the claims are without merit and we intend 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.

Employment Class Actions

        On or about July 7, 2010, a putative class action captioned Hamilton and Taylor v. Vitamin World, Inc. was filed against one of our subsidiaries in the Alameda Superior Court, California. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of employees in connection with several causes of action alleging, among other things, wage and hour violations. Plaintiffs describe the class as all non-exempt current and former employees of Vitamin World Stores in California. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, statutory penalties, restitution, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys' fees and costs in unidentified amounts. Vitamin World, Inc. has agreed upon a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs, and the parties have submitted settlement documentation to the court for approval, which would provide for payments to the class. Until such settlement is approved and entered by the court, 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 the defendant. This proposed settlement is not material.

        On or about April 8, 2010, a putative class action captioned Dirickson v. NBTY Acquisition, LLC, NBTY Manufacturing, LLC, NBTY, Inc., and Volt Management Corporation ("Volt") was filed against the Company and certain subsidiaries in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Volt is not related to the Company. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of employees in connection with several causes of action alleging, among other things, wage and hour violations. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of all non-exempt employees within the State of California who worked for Volt or any of the NBTY entities between April 8, 2006 and April 8, 2010, including compensatory damages, unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, unspecified injunctive relief, unjust enrichment and attorneys' fees and costs in unidentified amounts. The parties submitted to the court a settlement agreement providing for potential payments to the class and the court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement on or about May 9, 2012. No determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability, if any, until such settlement is approved and entered by the court. The estimated settlement value is not material.

Glucosamine-Based Dietary Supplements

        Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have been filed in various jurisdictions against the Company, its subsidiary Rexall Sundown, Inc. ("Rexall"), and/or other companies as to which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the marketing of glucosamine-based dietary supplements, under various states' consumer protection statutes. The lawsuits against the Company and its subsidiaries are: Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed June 14, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, on behalf of a putative class of California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus punitive damages and injunctive relief); and Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed August 22, 2011 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of a putative class of Massachusetts consumers seeking unspecified trebled compensatory damages), as well as other cases in California and Illinois against certain wholesale customers as to which the Company may have certain indemnification obligations. Motions to dismiss have been filed in all of these cases. On April 10, 2012, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part in the Jennings case and discovery has commenced; all other cases currently remain at the pleading stage. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously defend these actions. 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.

Claims in the Ordinary Course

        In addition to the foregoing, other regulatory inquiries, claims, suits and complaints (including product liability, false advertising, intellectual property and Proposition 65 claims) arise from time to time 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, results of operations or cash flows, if adversely determined against us.