5. Contingencies

The Company is from time to time engaged in routine litigation. The Company regularly reviews all pending litigation matters in which it is involved and establishes reserves deemed appropriate by management for these litigation matters when a probable loss estimate can be made.

As a marketer of dietary and nutritional supplements and other products that are ingested by consumers or applied to their bodies, the Company has been and is currently subjected to various product liability claims. The effects of these claims to date have not been material to the Company, and the reasonably possible range of exposure on currently existing claims is not material to the Company. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the allegations contained in the lawsuits. The Company currently maintains product liability insurance with an annual deductible of $10 million.

On April 16, 2007, Herbalife International of America, Inc. filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against certain former Herbalife distributors who had left the Company to join a competitor. The Complaint alleged breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional interference with contract, unfair competition, constructive trust and fraud and seeks monetary damages, attorney’s fees and injunctive relief (Herbalife International of America, Inc. v. Robert E. Ford, et al). The court entered a Preliminary Injunction against the defendants enjoining them from further use and/or misappropriation of the Company’s trade secrets on December 11, 2007. Defendants appealed the court’s entry of the Preliminary Injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That court affirmed, in relevant part, the Preliminary Injunction. On December 3, 2007, the defendants filed a counterclaim alleging that the Company had engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices, intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, false advertising and that the Company was an endless chain scheme in violation of California law and seeking restitution, contract rescission and an injunction. Both sides engaged in discovery and filed cross motions for Summary Judgment. On August 25, 2009, the court granted partial summary judgment for Herbalife on all of defendants’ claims except the claim that the Company is an endless chain scheme which under applicable law is a question of fact that can only be determined at trial. The court denied defendants’ motion for Summary Judgment on Herbalife’s claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract. On May 5, 2010, the District Court granted summary judgment for Herbalife on defendants’ endless chain-scheme counterclaim. Herbalife voluntarily dismissed its remaining claims, and on May 14, 2010, the District Court issued a final judgment dismissing all of the parties’ claims. On June 10, 2010 the defendants appealed that judgment and on June 21, 2010, Herbalife cross-appealed. The parties entered a joint stipulation of dismissal with the Court on May 24, 2011.

Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries have been subject to tax audits by governmental authorities in their respective countries. In certain of these tax audits, governmental authorities are proposing that significant amounts of additional taxes and related interest and penalties are due. The Company and its tax advisors believe that there are substantial defenses to their allegations that additional taxes are owed, and the Company is vigorously contesting the additional proposed taxes and related charges. On May 7, 2010, the Company received an assessment from the Mexican Tax Administration Service in an amount equivalent to approximately $97 million, translated at the period ended spot rate, for various items, the majority of which was Value Added Tax, or VAT, allegedly owed on certain of the Company’s products imported into Mexico during the years 2005 and 2006. This assessment is subject to interest and inflationary adjustments. On July 8, 2010, the Company initiated a formal administrative appeal process. On May 13, 2011, the Mexican Tax Administration Service issued a resolution on the Company’s administrative appeal. The resolution nullified the assessment. The Mexican Tax Administration Service can further review the tax audit findings and re-issue some or all of the original assessment. Prior to the nullification the Company entered into agreements with certain insurance companies to allow for the potential issuance of surety bonds in support of its appeal of the assessment. Such surety bonds, if issued, would not affect the availability of the Company’s New Credit Facility. These arrangements with the insurance companies remain in place in the event that the assessment is re-issued. The Company did not record a provision as the Company, based on analysis and guidance from its advisors, does not believe a loss would be probable if the assessment is re-issued or if any additional assessment is issued. Further, the Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome if the assessment was re-issued or any additional assessments were to be issued for these or other periods. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses if the assessment is re-issued or would have meritorious defenses if any additional assessment is issued.

These matters may take several years to resolve. While the Company believes it has meritorious defenses, it cannot be sure of their ultimate resolution. Although the Company has reserved amounts for certain matters that the Company believes represent the most likely outcome of the resolution of these related disputes, if the Company is incorrect in the assessment, the Company may have to record additional expenses, when it becomes probable that an increased potential liability is warranted.