Employees

      As of September 30, 2005, we had 2,667 full-time employees. These numbers do not include our distributors, who are independent contractors rather than our employees. Except for some employees in Mexico and in some European countries, none of our employees are members of any labor union, and we have never experienced any business interruption as a result of any labor disputes.

Properties

      We lease all of our physical properties located in the United States. Our executive offices, located in Century City, California, include approximately 115,000 square feet of general office space under lease arrangements expiring in August 2007. We lease an aggregate of approximately 144,000 square feet of office space, computer facilities and conference rooms at the Operations Center in Inglewood, California, under a lease that expires in October 2006, and approximately 150,000 square feet of warehouse space in two separate facilities located in Los Angeles and Memphis. The Los Angeles and Memphis lease agreements have terms through June 2006 and August 2006, respectively. In Venray, Netherlands, we lease our European centralized warehouse of approximately 175,000 square feet. The lease expires in June 2007. We also lease warehouse, manufacturing plant and office space in a majority of our other geographic areas of operation. We believe that our existing facilities are adequate to meet our current requirements and that comparable space is readily available at each of these locations.

Legal Proceedings

      We are from time to time engaged in routine litigation. We regularly review all pending litigation matters in which we are involved and establish reserves deemed appropriate by management for these litigation matters when a probable loss estimate can be made.

      Herbalife International and certain of its independent distributors have been named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed February 17, 2005, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, and served on Herbalife International on March 14, 2005 ( Minton v. Herbalife International, et al ). The case has been transferred to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The plaintiff is challenging the marketing practices of certain Herbalife International independent distributors and Herbalife International under various state laws prohibiting “endless chain schemes,” insufficient disclosure in assisted marketing plans, unfair and deceptive business practices, and fraud and deceit. The plaintiff alleges that the Freedom Group system operated by certain independent distributors of Herbalife International products places too much emphasis on recruiting and encourages excessively large purchases of product and promotional materials by distributors. The plaintiff also alleges that Freedom Group pressured distributors to disseminate misleading promotional materials. The plaintiff seeks to hold Herbalife International vicariously liable for the actions of its independent distributors and is seeking damages and injunctive relief. The Company believes that we have meritorious defenses to the suit.

      Herbalife International and certain of its distributors have been named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed July 16, 2003, in the Circuit Court of Ohio County in the State of West Virginia (Mey v. Herbalife International, Inc., et al) . The complaint alleges that certain telemarketing practices of certain Herbalife International distributors violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, and seeks to hold Herbalife International liable for the practices of its distributors. More specifically, the plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that several of Herbalife International’s distributors used pre-recorded telephone messages and autodialers to contact prospective customers in violation of the TCPA’s prohibition of such practices. Herbalife International’s distributors are independent contractors and, if any such distributors in fact violated the TCPA, they also violated Herbalife’s policies, which require its distributors to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws. We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the suit.

      As a marketer of dietary and nutritional supplements and other products that are ingested by consumers or applied to their bodies, we have been and are currently subjected to various product liability claims. The effects of these claims to date have not been material to us, and the reasonably possible range of exposure on currently existing claims is not material to us. We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the allegations

contained in the lawsuits. We currently maintain product liability insurance with an annual deductible of $10 million.

      Certain of our 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. We and our tax advisors believe that there are substantial defenses to their allegations that additional taxes are owing, and we are vigorously contesting the additional proposed taxes and related charges.

      These matters may take several years to resolve, and we cannot be sure of their ultimate resolution. However, it is the opinion of management that adverse outcomes, if any, will not likely result in a material effect on our financial condition and operating results. This opinion is based on our belief that any losses we suffer would not be material and that we have meritorious defenses. Although we have reserved an amount that we believe represents the likely outcome of the resolution of these disputes, if we are incorrect in our assessment we may have to pay the full amount assessed.