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 foods, 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.

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 governmental 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 $85 million, translated at the September 30, 2014 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. Since the Mexican Tax Administration Service can further review the tax audit findings and re-issue some or all of the original assessment, the Company commenced litigation in the Tax Court of Mexico in August 2011 to dispute the assertions made by the Mexican Tax Administration Service in the case. The Mexican Tax Administration Service filed a response which was received by the Company in April 2012. The response challenged the assertions that the Company made in its August 2011 filing. Litigation in this case is currently ongoing.

Prior to the nullification of the Mexican Tax Administration Service assessment relating to the 2005 and 2006 years 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 Credit Facility. These arrangements with the insurance companies remain in place in the event that the assessment is re-issued.

The Mexican Tax Administration Service commenced audits of the Company’s Mexican subsidiaries for the period from January to September 2007 and on May 10, 2013, the Company received an assessment of approximately $22 million, translated at the September 30, 2014 spot rate, related to that period. On July 11, 2013, the Company filed an administrative appeal disputing the assessment. In addition, the Mexican Tax Administration Service has requested additional information in response to Company filings for VAT refunds. On September 22, 2014, the Mexican Tax Administration Service denied the Company’s administrative appeal. The Company intends to appeal this decision. In October 2014, the Company issued a surety bond in the amount of $23.6 million, translated at the September 30, 2014 spot rate, through an insurance company to guarantee payment of the tax assessment as required while the Company pursues an appeal of the assessment. The Company has not recognized a loss as the Company does not believe a loss is probable.

The Mexican Tax Administration Service audited the Company’s Mexican subsidiaries for the 2011 year. The audit focused on importation and VAT issues. On June 25, 2013, the Mexican Tax Administration Service closed the audit of the 2011 year without any assessment.

The Company has not recognized a loss with respect to any of these Mexican matters as the Company, based on its analysis and guidance from its advisors, does not believe a loss is probable. 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.

The Mexican Tax Administration Service has requested information related to the Company’s 2010 year. This information has been provided. In addition, the Mexican Tax Administration Service requested information related to the Company’s 2012 year. The Company is in the process of responding to this request.

The Company received an assessment from the Spanish Tax Authority in an amount equivalent to approximately $4.1 million, translated at the September 30, 2014 spot rate, for withholding taxes, interest and penalties related to payments to Spanish Members for the 2003-2004 periods. The Company appealed the assessment to the National Appellate Court (Audiencia Nacional). Based on the ruling of the National Appellate Court, substantially all of the assessment was nullified. The Company began withholding taxes on payments to Spanish Members for the 2012 year. If the Spanish Tax Authority raises the same issue in later years, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses. The Company has not recognized a loss as the Company does not believe a loss is probable. The Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome if additional assessments for other periods were to be issued.

The Company received a tax assessment in September 2009 from the Federal Revenue Office of Brazil in an amount equivalent to approximately $3.5 million, translated at the September 30, 2014 spot rate, related to withholding/contributions based on payments to the Company’s Members during 2004. The Company has appealed this tax assessment to the Administrative Council of Tax Appeals (2nd level administrative appeal) as it believes it has meritorious defenses and it has not recognized a loss as the Company does not believe a loss is probable. On March 6, 2014, the Company was notified of a similar audit of the 2011 year. The Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount of the loss that may result from an unfavorable outcome if additional assessments for other periods were to be issued.

The Company received an order from a Rome Labor Court on behalf of the Social Security Authority on March 1, 2012, to pay an amount equivalent to approximately $6.8 million, translated at the September 30, 2014 spot rate, for social contributions, interest and penalties related to payments to Italian Members from 2002 through 2005. The Company has filed a writ with the Rome Labor Court appealing the order and the Social Security Authority filed a response brief. At a hearing on July 12, 2012, the Social Security Authority announced its intention to withdraw their claim as well as the order to pay the assessment. A hearing on this matter is scheduled for December 23, 2014. The Company has not recognized a loss as the Company does not believe a loss is probable.

The Company received a tax assessment in August 2014, from one of the Indian VAT authorities in an amount equivalent to approximately $6.3 million, translated at the September 30, 2014 spot rate, related to VAT for the years ended March 31, 2011 and March 31, 2012. The Company has initiated an administrative tax appeal as it believes it has meritorious defenses. The Company has not recognized a loss as it does not believe a loss is probable.

The Korea Customs Service is currently auditing the importation activities of Herbalife Korea for the 2009-2014 period. If an assessment is issued, the Company would be required to pay the amount requested in order to appeal the assessment. Based on the Company’s analysis and guidance from its advisors, the Company does not believe a loss is probable. Further, the Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of loss.

Bostick, et al., v. Herbalife Int’l of Am., Inc., et al. On April 8, 2013, Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in a suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, challenging Herbalife’s marketing practices and business structure under California laws prohibiting “endless chain schemes,” unfair and deceptive business practices, and false advertising, as well as federal RICO statutes. On July 7, 2014, the complaint was amended to add additional plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount. The federal RICO claim was dismissed and a class has not been certified to date. The remaining claims are proceeding, and a trial has been set to commence on April 21, 2015. While the Company continues to believe the suit is without merit, and without in any way admitting liability or wrongdoing, the Company and the plaintiffs have agreed on the principal terms of a settlement and continue to work cooperatively to negotiate a stipulation of settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company would (i) pay $15 million into a fund to be distributed to qualified claimants and (ii) accept up to a maximum amount of $2.5 million in product returns from qualified claimants. Any settlement would be subject to the preliminary and final approval of the court. As of September 30, 2014, these amounts were adequately reserved for in the Company’s financial statements.

        In re Herbalife, Ltd. Securities Litigation (formerly captioned Awad v. Herbalife Ltd., et al.). On April 14, 2014, Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a purported stockholder class action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleged that the Company and certain officers made material misstatements concerning the Company’s finances and business practices, and contended that the Company is operating a pyramid scheme. The initial complaint sought to represent a class of investors that had purchased shares of our common stock between May 4, 2010 and April 11, 2014. On July 30, 2014, the Court approved the appointment of different shareholders as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of counsel. On September 18, 2014, these lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws against the Company, and certain of its officers. The Amended Complaint brings claims for unspecified damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleges that the defendants made material misstatements that “fundamentally misrepresented the nature, scope and legality of the Company’s business and operations to consumers and investors alike,” and further alleges that the Company is one of “the most sophisticated pyramid schemes in history.” The lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons or entities that purchased shares of our common stock between February 23, 2011 and July 29, 2014. Defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims in the Amended Complaint will be filed on or about November 3, 2014. The Company intends to vigorously defend this purported class action suit.

U.S. Federal Trade Commission Civil Investigative Demand. In March 2014, the Company received from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) a Civil Investigative Demand (a “CID”) relating to the FTC’s confidential investigation of whether the Company has complied with federal law in the advertising, marketing, or sale of business opportunities. Pursuant to the CID, the FTC has requested from the Company documents and other information for the time period commencing January 1, 2009 to the present. The Company is cooperating with the investigation and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.

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 may reserve 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 its assessment, the Company may have to record additional expenses, when it becomes probable that an increased potential liability is warranted.