GNC 2011 Annual Report Download - page 42

Table of Contents
named, among other defendants, in approximately 60 lawsuits related to Hydroxycut-branded products in 13 states. Iovate previously accepted GNC's tender
request for defense and indemnification under its purchasing agreement with GNC and, as such, Iovate has accepted GNC's request for defense and
indemnification in the Hydroxycut matters. GNC's ability to obtain full recovery in respect of any claims against GNC in connection with products
manufactured by Iovate under the indemnity is dependent on Iovate's insurance coverage, the creditworthiness of its insurer, and the absence of significant
defenses by such insurer. To the extent GNC is not fully compensated by Iovate's insurer, it can seek recovery directly from Iovate. GNC's ability to fully
recover such amounts may be limited by the creditworthiness of Iovate.
As of December 31, 2010, there were 50 pending lawsuits related to Hydroxycut in which GNC had been named: 44 individual, largely personal injury
claims and six putative class action cases, generally inclusive of claims of consumer fraud, misrepresentation, strict liability and breach of warranty. Of the
130 individual plaintiffs in the lawsuits, three have asserted specific damage claims; two claims range from $50,000 to $75,000 (excluding costs and interest),
and one claim asserts $5 million of actual and compensatory damages and $10 million of treble and/or punitive damages.
The following 44 personal injury matters were filed by individuals claiming injuries from use and consumption of Hydroxycut-branded products:
Christopher and Dana Hamilton v. Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 09CV1944 (filed
August 18, 2009);
Hector Manuel Abarca and Diana Curiel v. Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
09CV3861 (filed August 21, 2009);
Jessica Rogoff v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., et al., Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, BC422842 (filed
September 29, 2009);
Lucretia Ballou v. Muscletech Research and Development, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, 09CV1996 (filed
December 3, 2009);
Clinton Davis v. GNC Corporation, et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 09CV5055 (filed November 11, 2009);
Michael Fyalka v. Iovate Health Sciences, et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 09CV944 (filed November 10, 2009);
Monica Fay Stepter v. Iovate Health Sciences, USA, Inc., et al., 17th Judicial District Court, Parish of LaFourche, Louisiana (filed November 25,
2009);
Andrew Nolley v. Muscletech Research and Development, et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Mississippi, 09CV140 (filed
December 18, 2009);
Kerry Donald v. Iovate Health Sciences Group, et al., Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County (filed January 22, 2010);
Casey Slyter v. GNC Corporation, et al., U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, 10CV2065 (filed January 29, 2010);
Debra Rutherford, et al. v. Muscletech Research and Development, Inc., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, 10CV370 (filed
February 19, 2010);
Amber Lutz, et al. v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., et al., Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 30-2010 00357532 (filed March 26,
2010);
Shannon Justers, et al. v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., et al., Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 30-2010 00357521 (filed
March 26, 2010);
40
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•