Commitments And Contingencies
|12 Months Ended|
Dec. 31, 2016
|Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]|
|Commitments And Contingencies||
NOTE I – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
With the exception of the Company’s Salt Lake City headquarters, Australia facility, Beijing, China facility and Tianjin, China facility, facilities are generally leased. Each of the facility lease agreements is a non-cancelable operating lease generally structured with renewal options and expire prior to or during 2020. The Company utilizes equipment under non-cancelable operating leases, expiring through 2019. The minimum commitments under operating leases at December 31, 2016 are as follows:
These leases generally provide that property taxes, insurance, and maintenance expenses are the responsibility of the Company. Such expenses are not included in the operating lease amounts outlined in the table above or in the rent expense amounts that follow. The total rent expense was approximately $11,129, $10,503, and $10,153 for the years ended 2014, 2015, and 2016, respectively.
The Company has other unconditional purchase obligations relating to capital projects and advertising agreements of $5,877 that will be paid in the next year.
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 has not accrued for any contingency at December 31, 2016 as the Company does not consider any contingency to be probable nor 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.
In August 2014, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah (James Robert Rawcliffe v. Robert Anciaux, et al.,) against certain of our directors and officers. The derivative complaint, which also names USANA as a nominal defendant but is asserted on USANA’s behalf, contains claims of breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment against the defendant directors and officers in connection with certain equity awards granted by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors in February 2014. In October 2014, The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and, in March 2015, the court granted that motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. In May 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Utah Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remanded the Company’s case to the Utah Court of Appeals. In December 2016, the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Utah Supreme Court, confirming the Company’s belief that this case addresses a new issue under Utah law. The Company believes that the claims in the complaint are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend this suit. The Company continues to believe, based on information currently available, that the final outcome of this suit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations or consolidated financial position.
NOTE I – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES - CONTINUED
On February 7, 2017, the Company disclosed on Form 8-K 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 Securities and Exchange Commission 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 in its early stage, 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 putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, with the plaintiff, April Rumbaugh, 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 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. The lawsuit names as defendants the Company; our former Co-Chief Executive Officer, David A. Wentz; and our Chief Financial Officer, Paul A. Jones. On behalf of herself and a putative class of purchasers of USANA stock between March 14, 2014 and February 7, 2017, the plaintiff asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an award of damages, interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and other costs. The Company believes that the action is without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against all claims asserted.
The Company sponsors an employee benefit plan under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. This plan covers employees who are at least 18 years of age and have met a one-month service requirement. The Company makes a matching contribution equal to 100 percent of the first one percent of a participant’s compensation that is contributed by the participant, and 50 percent of that deferral that exceeds one percent of the participant’s compensation, not to exceed six percent of the participant’s compensation, subject to the limits of ERISA. In addition, the Company may make a discretionary contribution based on earnings. The Company’s matching contributions cliff vest at two years of service. Contributions made by the Company to the plan in the United States were $1,324, $1,458, and $1,594 for the years ended 2014, 2015, and 2016, respectively.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef