Litigation Summary	3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Litigation Summary
Litigation Summary	6. Litigation Summary Glucosamine-Based Dietary Supplements Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have been filed in various jurisdictions against NBTY, 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 NBTY 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; 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; and Nunez v. NBTY, Inc. et al. (filed March 1, 2013) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Nunez Case"), on behalf of a putative class of California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus injunctive relief, as well as other cases in California and Illinois against certain wholesale customers as to which we may have certain indemnification obligations. In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement with the remaining plaintiffs, which includes all cases and resolved all pending claims without any admission of or concession of liability by NBTY, and which provided for a release of all claims in return for payments to the class, together with attorneys' fees, and notice and administrative costs. Fairness Hearings took place on October 4, 2013 and November 20, 2013. On January 3, 2014, the court issued an opinion and order approving the settlement as modified (the "Order"). The final judgment was issued on January 22, 2014 (the "Judgment"). Certain objectors filed a notice of appeal of the Order and the Judgment on January 29, 2014 and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 3, 2014. On November 19, 2014, the appellate court issued a decision granting the objectors' appeal. The appellate court reversed and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's decision. In fiscal 2013, NBTY recorded a provision of $12,000, reflecting its best estimate of exposure for payments to the class together with attorney's fees and notice and administrative costs in connection with this class action settlement. As a result of the court's approval of the settlement and the closure of the claims period, NBTY reduced its estimate of exposure to $6,100. This reduction in the estimated exposure was reflected in the Company's first quarter results for fiscal 2014. Until the cases are resolved, no final determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability on the part of NBTY. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Claim NBTY, and certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a class-action lawsuit, captioned John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.; Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC; Rexall, Inc.; NBTY, Inc.; Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions ("CCG") and John Does 1-10 (originally filed October 22, 2013), brought in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants faxed advertisements to plaintiff and others without invitation or permission, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). On May 2, 2014, NBTY and its named subsidiary defendants cross-claimed against CCG, who was a third party vendor engaged by NBTY, and CCG cross-claimed against NBTY and named subsidiary defendants on June 13, 2014. CCG brought a third party complaint against an unrelated entity, Healthcare Data Experts, LLC, on June 27, 2014. On July 21, 2014, CCG filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and that motion is pending. At this time, no determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability on the part of NBTY, however, we do not believe the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. Claims in the Ordinary Course In addition to the foregoing, other regulatory inquiries, claims, suits and complaints (including product liability, intellectual property and Proposition 65 claims) arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. We currently believe that such other inquiries, claims, suits and complaints would not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements, if adversely determined against us. Over the past several years, we have been served with various false advertising putative class action cases in various U.S. jurisdictions, as have various other companies in the industry. Over the past few years, the number of these cases has increased, such that at any given time we are defending several suits concerning a variety of products. These cases challenge the marketing of the subject dietary supplements under various states' consumer protection statutes and generally seek unspecified compensatory damages based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus punitive damages and injunctive relief. Until these cases are resolved, no determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability on our part.

6. Litigation Summary

Glucosamine-Based Dietary Supplements

Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have been filed in various jurisdictions against NBTY, 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 NBTY 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; 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; and Nunez v. NBTY, Inc. et al. (filed March 1, 2013) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Nunez Case"), on behalf of a putative class of California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus injunctive relief, as well as other cases in California and Illinois against certain wholesale customers as to which we may have certain indemnification obligations.

In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement with the remaining plaintiffs, which includes all cases and resolved all pending claims without any admission of or concession of liability by NBTY, and which provided for a release of all claims in return for payments to the class, together with attorneys' fees, and notice and administrative costs. Fairness Hearings took place on October 4, 2013 and November 20, 2013. On January 3, 2014, the court issued an opinion and order approving the settlement as modified (the "Order"). The final judgment was issued on January 22, 2014 (the "Judgment"). Certain objectors filed a notice of appeal of the Order and the Judgment on January 29, 2014 and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 3, 2014. On November 19, 2014, the appellate court issued a decision granting the objectors' appeal. The appellate court reversed and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's decision.

In fiscal 2013, NBTY recorded a provision of $12,000, reflecting its best estimate of exposure for payments to the class together with attorney's fees and notice and administrative costs in connection with this class action settlement. As a result of the court's approval of the settlement and the closure of the claims period, NBTY reduced its estimate of exposure to $6,100. This reduction in the estimated exposure was reflected in the Company's first quarter results for fiscal 2014. Until the cases are resolved, no final determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability on the part of NBTY.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Claim

NBTY, and certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a class-action lawsuit, captioned John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.; Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC; Rexall, Inc.; NBTY, Inc.; Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions ("CCG") and John Does 1-10 (originally filed October 22, 2013), brought in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants faxed advertisements to plaintiff and others without invitation or permission, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

On May 2, 2014, NBTY and its named subsidiary defendants cross-claimed against CCG, who was a third party vendor engaged by NBTY, and CCG cross-claimed against NBTY and named subsidiary defendants on June 13, 2014. CCG brought a third party complaint against an unrelated entity, Healthcare Data Experts, LLC, on June 27, 2014. On July 21, 2014, CCG filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and that motion is pending.

At this time, no determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability on the part of NBTY, however, we do not believe the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Claims in the Ordinary Course

In addition to the foregoing, other regulatory inquiries, claims, suits and complaints (including product liability, intellectual property and Proposition 65 claims) arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. We currently believe that such other inquiries, claims, suits and complaints would not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements, if adversely determined against us.

Over the past several years, we have been served with various false advertising putative class action cases in various U.S. jurisdictions, as have various other companies in the industry. Over the past few years, the number of these cases has increased, such that at any given time we are defending several suits concerning a variety of products. These cases challenge the marketing of the subject dietary supplements under various states' consumer protection statutes and generally seek unspecified compensatory damages based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus punitive damages and injunctive relief. Until these cases are resolved, no determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability on our part.