Litigation Summary	12 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Litigation Summary
Litigation Summary	11. Litigation Summary Herbal Dietary Supplements In February 2015, the State of New York Office of the Attorney General (the "NY AG") began an investigation concerning the authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and associated marketing. As part of this investigation, the NY AG is reviewing the sufficiency of the measures that several manufacturers and retailers, including NBTY, are taking to independently assess the validity of their representations and advertising in connection with the sale of herbal supplements. On September 9, 2015, the NY AG sent letters to fourteen separate companies, including NBTY, concerning an additional herbal product. NBTY has fully cooperated with the NY AG; however until these investigations are concluded, no final determination can be made as to its ultimate outcome or the amount of liability, if any, on the part of NBTY. Following the NY AG investigation, starting in February 2015, numerous putative class actions were filed in various jurisdictions against NBTY, certain of its customers and/or other companies as to which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and associated marketing, under various states' consumer protection statutes. Motions for transfer and consolidation of all of the federal actions as multidistrict litigation into a single district before a single judge were granted on June 9, 2015, and the cases are consolidated before Judge John W. Darrah of the United States District Court, North District of Illinois—Eastern Division (the "MDL Case"). Three class actions against one of our customers to which we may have a duty to indemnify have not been transferred and consolidated with the MDL Case, and are at the initial stages of litigation. At this time, no determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the investigation and related litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on the part of NBTY. 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 Consumer Products Group customers as to which we may have certain indemnification obligations. In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs, which included 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. 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. 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 April 2015, NBTY agreed upon a revised proposed settlement with certain plaintiffs which includes all cases and resolves all pending claims without any admission of or concession of liability by NBTY. The parties have signed settlement documentation providing for a release of all claims in return for payments to the class, together with attorneys' fees, and notice and administrative costs estimated to be in the amount of $9,000, which resulted in an additional charge of $4,300 in the second quarter results for fiscal 2015. On May 14, 2015, the settlement was submitted to the court for preliminary approval and a preliminary conference was held before the court on July 22, 2015. 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 on February 11, 2015 the court issued an Order and Opinion dismissing the class-action. On February 27, 2015, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the court's dismissal of the action and that appeal is pending. The court has scheduled oral arguments for December 10, 2015. 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. Claims in the Ordinary Course In addition to the foregoing, other regulatory inquiries, audits, investigations, claims, suits and complaints (including false advertising, product liability, escheat laws, 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.

11. Litigation Summary

Herbal Dietary Supplements

In February 2015, the State of New York Office of the Attorney General (the "NY AG") began an investigation concerning the authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and associated marketing. As part of this investigation, the NY AG is reviewing the sufficiency of the measures that several manufacturers and retailers, including NBTY, are taking to independently assess the validity of their representations and advertising in connection with the sale of herbal supplements. On September 9, 2015, the NY AG sent letters to fourteen separate companies, including NBTY, concerning an additional herbal product. NBTY has fully cooperated with the NY AG; however until these investigations are concluded, no final determination can be made as to its ultimate outcome or the amount of liability, if any, on the part of NBTY.

Following the NY AG investigation, starting in February 2015, numerous putative class actions were filed in various jurisdictions against NBTY, certain of its customers and/or other companies as to which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and associated marketing, under various states' consumer protection statutes. Motions for transfer and consolidation of all of the federal actions as multidistrict litigation into a single district before a single judge were granted on June 9, 2015, and the cases are consolidated before Judge John W. Darrah of the United States District Court, North District of Illinois—Eastern Division (the "MDL Case"). Three class actions against one of our customers to which we may have a duty to indemnify have not been transferred and consolidated with the MDL Case, and are at the initial stages of litigation. At this time, no determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the investigation and related litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on the part of NBTY.

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 Consumer Products Group customers as to which we may have certain indemnification obligations.

In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs, which included 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. 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.

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 April 2015, NBTY agreed upon a revised proposed settlement with certain plaintiffs which includes all cases and resolves all pending claims without any admission of or concession of liability by NBTY. The parties have signed settlement documentation providing for a release of all claims in return for payments to the class, together with attorneys' fees, and notice and administrative costs estimated to be in the amount of $9,000, which resulted in an additional charge of $4,300 in the second quarter results for fiscal 2015. On May 14, 2015, the settlement was submitted to the court for preliminary approval and a preliminary conference was held before the court on July 22, 2015. 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 on February 11, 2015 the court issued an Order and Opinion dismissing the class-action. On February 27, 2015, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the court's dismissal of the action and that appeal is pending. The court has scheduled oral arguments for December 10, 2015.

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.

Claims in the Ordinary Course

In addition to the foregoing, other regulatory inquiries, audits, investigations, claims, suits and complaints (including false advertising, product liability, escheat laws, 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.