NOTE I – CONTINGENCIES

The Company is involved in various lawsuits, claims, and other legal matters from time to time that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business, including matters involving our products, intellectual property, supplier relationships, distributors, competitor relationships, employees and other matters. The Company records a liability when a particular contingency is probable and estimable. The Company faces contingencies that are reasonably possible to occur; however, they cannot currently be estimated. While complete assurance cannot be given to the outcome of these proceedings, management does not currently believe that any of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.



On February 7, 2017, the Company disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC that it is conducting a voluntary internal investigation regarding its BabyCare operations in China. In connection with this investigation, the Company expects to continue to incur costs in conducting the on-going review and investigation, in responding to requests for information in connection with any government investigations and in defending any potential civil or governmental proceedings that are instituted against it or any of its current or former officers or directors. The Company has voluntarily contacted the SEC and the United States Department of Justice to advise both agencies that an internal investigation is underway and intends to provide additional information to both agencies as the investigation progresses. Because the internal investigation is ongoing, the Company cannot predict the duration, scope, or result of the investigation. One or more governmental actions could be instituted in respect of the matters that are the subject of the internal investigation, and such actions, if brought, may result in judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions, cease and desist orders, criminal penalties, or other relief.



On February 13, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit (Rumbaugh v. USANA Health Sciences Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00106) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah by April Rumbaugh, a purported shareholder of USANA, alleging that the Company failed to disclose that (i) the Company’s BabyCare subsidiary had engaged in improper reimbursement practices in China, (ii) these practices constituted violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or FCPA, (iii) as such, the Company’s China revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and unlikely to be sustainable, and (iv) the foregoing conduct, when it became known, was likely to subject the Company to significant regulatory scrutiny. On behalf of herself and a putative class of purchasers of USANA stock between March 14, 2014 and February 7, 2017, the plaintiff asserted claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff sought, among other things, an award of damages, interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and other costs. The lawsuit named as defendants the Company; its former Co-Chief Executive Officer, David A. Wentz; and our Chief Leadership Development Officer, Paul A. Jones. On June 2, 2017, the court appointed Chi Wah On (another purported shareholder of USANA) as lead plaintiff. On August 4, 2017, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint seeking similar relief. This new complaint asserted additional allegations and added the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Kevin G. Guest, and Chief Financial Officer, G. Douglas Hekking, as defendants. On September 18, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and briefing was completed on November 8, 2017.  The motion to dismiss was argued on April 25, 2018.  Subsequent to September 29, 2018, on October 16, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissed the action with prejudice.