PART I

          The merger consideration totaled $1.65 billion. The merger consideration was subject to certain post-closing adjustments, including an adjustment for the aggregate amount of certain differences of working capital from an agreed upon working capital target. In addition, as a result of the Merger, our Parent will obtain certain tax benefits. Pursuant to the merger agreement, our parent has agreed to make post-closing payments to GNC Parent Corporation’s former stockholders for any tax refunds that it receives as a result of these tax benefits and as and to the extent its future tax obligations are reduced by these tax benefits. We will not benefit from these tax assets and will continue to make payments to our parent in respect of taxes without regard to these tax benefits. The merger was funded with a combination of equity contributions and our issuance of new debt. The new debt, which was entered into or issued on the closing, consisted of a new senior credit facility comprised of a $675.0 million term loan facility and a $60.0 million revolving credit facility (the “New Senior Credit Facility”), $300.0 million aggregate principal amount of Senior Floating Rate Toggle Notes due 2014 (the “New Senior Notes”), and $110.0 million aggregate principal amount of 10.75% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2015 (the “New Senior Subordinated Notes”). We utilized proceeds from the new debt to repay our December 2003 senior credit facility, our 8 5/8% senior notes issued in January 2005, and our 8 ¹ / 2 % senior subordinated notes issued in December 2003. We contributed the remainder of the debt proceeds, after payment of fees and expenses, to a newly formed, wholly owned subsidiary, which then loaned such net proceeds to GNC Parent Corporation. GNC Parent Corporation used those proceeds, together with the equity contributions, to repay GNC Parent Corporation’s outstanding floating rate senior PIK notes issued in November 2006, pay the merger consideration, and pay fees and expenses related to the merger transactions.

          As a result of the Merger, GNC Acquisition Holdings Inc. became the sole equity holder of GNC Parent LLC and the ultimate parent company of both GNC Corporation, our direct parent company, and us. The outstanding capital stock of GNC Acquisition Holdings Inc. is beneficially owned by affiliates of Ares Management LLC and Teachers’ Private Capital (a division of Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board), certain institutional investors, certain of our directors, and certain former stockholders of GNC Parent Corporation, including members of our management. Refer to Note 1, “Nature of Business,” to our consolidated financial statements included in this report for additional information.

          GNC Parent Corporation was formed in November 2006 to acquire all the outstanding common stock of GNC Corporation.

          We were formed in October 2003 and GNC Corporation was formed as a Delaware corporation in November 2003 by Apollo Management V, L.P. “Apollo”, an affiliate of Apollo Management V, L.P. and members of our management to acquire General Nutrition Companies, Inc. from Numico USA, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Koninklijke (Royal) Numico N.V. (collectively, “Numico”). In December 2003, we purchased all of the outstanding equity interests of General Nutrition Companies, Inc.

          General Nutrition Companies, Inc. was founded in 1935 by David Shakarian who opened its first health food store in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Since that time, the number of stores has continued to grow, and General Nutrition Companies, Inc. began producing its own vitamin and mineral supplements as well as foods, beverages, and cosmetics. General Nutrition Companies, Inc. was acquired in August 1999 by Numico Investment Corp. and, prior to its acquisition, was a publicly traded company listed on the Nasdaq National Market.

Industry Overview

          We operate within the large and growing U.S. nutritional supplements retail industry. According to Nutrition Business Journal’s Supplement Business Report 2007, our industry generated an estimated $22.5 billion in sales in 2006 and an estimated $23.4 billion in 2007, and is projected to grow at an average annual rate of approximately 4% per year for at least the next five years. Our industry is also highly fragmented, and we believe this fragmentation provides large operators, like us, the ability to compete more effectively due to scale advantages.

          We expect several key demographic, healthcare, and lifestyle trends to drive the continued growth of our industry. These trends include:

	•		Increased Focus on Healthy Living: Consumers are leading more active lifestyles and becoming increasingly focused on healthy living, nutrition, and supplementation. According to the Nutrition Business Journal, a study by the Hartman Group found that 85% of the American population today is involved to some degree in health and wellness compared to 70% to 75% a few years ago. We believe that growth in the nutritional supplements industry will continue to be driven by consumers who increasingly embrace health and wellness as a critical part of their lifestyles.
	•		Aging Population: The average age of the U.S. population is increasing. U.S. Census Bureau data indicates that the number of Americans age 65 or older is expected to increase by approximately 56% from 2000 to 2020. We believe that these consumers are significantly more likely to use nutritional supplements, particularly VMHS products, than younger persons and have higher levels of disposable income to pursue healthy lifestyles.
	•		Rising Healthcare Costs and Use of Preventive Measures: Healthcare related costs have increased substantially in the United States. A preliminary survey released by Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust in 2006 found that between the spring of 2005 and the spring of 2006, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance increased by 7.7% more than twice the rate of general inflation for the same period. To reduce medical costs and avoid the complexities of dealing with the healthcare system, and given increasing incidence of medical problems and concern over the use and effects of prescription drugs, many consumers take preventive measures, including alternative medicines and nutritional supplements.
	•		Increasing Focus on Fitness: In total, U.S. health club memberships increased 4.9% between January 2004 and January 2006 from 39.4 million members to a record 41.3 million and has grown 70% from 24.1 million in 1995, according to the International Health, Racquet & Sportsclub Association. We believe that the growing number of fitness-oriented consumers, at increasingly younger ages, are interested in taking sports nutrition products to increase energy, endurance, and strength during exercise and to aid recovery after exercise.

          Participants in our industry include specialty retailers, supermarkets, drugstores, mass merchants, multi-level marketing organizations, mail-order companies, and a variety of other smaller participants. The nutritional supplements sold through these channels are divided into four major product categories: VMHS; sports nutrition products; diet products; and other wellness products. Most supermarkets, drugstores, and mass merchants have narrow nutritional supplement product offerings limited primarily to simple vitamins and herbs, with less knowledgeable sales associates than specialty retailers. We believe that the market share of supermarkets, drugstores, and mass merchants over the last five years has remained relatively constant.

Business Overview

          The following charts illustrate, for the combined results of the predecessor from January 1 to March 15, 2007 and the successor from March 16 to December 31, 2007, the percentage of our net revenue generated by our three business segments and the percentage of our net U.S. retail supplement revenue generated by our product categories:

          Throughout 2007, we did not have any meaningful concentration of sales from any single product or product line.

      Retail Locations

          Our retail network represents the largest specialty retail store network in the nutritional supplements industry according to Nutrition Business Journal’s Supplement Business Report 2007. As of December 31, 2007, there were 6,159 GNC store locations globally, including:

	•		2,598 company-owned stores in the United States (all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico);
	•		147 company-owned stores in Canada;
	•		978 domestic franchised stores;
	•		1,078 international franchised stores in 49 markets; and
	•		1,358 GNC “store-within-a-store” locations under our strategic alliance with Rite Aid Corporation.

          Most of our company-owned and franchised U.S. stores are between 1,000 and 2,000 square feet and are located in shopping malls and strip centers. We have approximately ten times the domestic store base of our nearest U.S. specialty retail competitor.

           Website. In December 2005 we also started selling products through our website, www.gnc.com. This additional sales channel has enabled us to market and sell our products in regions where we do not have retail operations or have limited operations. Some of the products offered on our website may not be available at our retail locations, thus enabling us to broaden the assortment of products available to our customers. The ability to purchase our products through the internet also offers a convenient method for repeat customers to evaluate and purchase new and existing products. To date, we believe that a majority of the sales generated by our website are incremental to the revenues from our retail locations.

      Franchise Activities

          We generate income from franchise activities primarily through product sales to franchisees, royalties on franchise retail sales, and franchise fees. To assist our franchisees in the successful operation of their stores and to protect our brand image, we offer a number of services to franchisees including training, site selection, construction assistance, and accounting services. We believe that our franchise program enhances our brand awareness and market presence and will enable us to continue to expand our store base internationally with limited capital expenditures on our part. Over the last two years, we realigned our domestic franchise system with our corporate strategies and re-acquired or closed unprofitable or non-compliant franchised stores in order to improve the financial performance of the franchise system.

      Store-Within-a-Store Locations

          To increase brand awareness and promote access to customers who may not frequent specialty nutrition stores, we entered into a strategic alliance in December 1998 with Rite Aid to open our GNC store-within-a-store locations. Through this strategic alliance, we generate revenues from fees paid by Rite Aid for new store-within-a-store openings, sales to Rite Aid of our products at wholesale prices, the manufacture of Rite Aid private label products, and retail sales of certain consigned inventory. In the third quarter of 2007, we extended our alliance with Rite Aid through 2014 with a five year option. At December 31, 2007, Rite Aid opened 140 stores of 1,125 additional stores that Rite Aid has committed to open by December 31, 2014.

      Marketing

          We market our proprietary brands of nutritional products through an integrated marketing program that includes television, print, and radio media, storefront graphics, direct mailings to members of our Gold Card loyalty program, and point of purchase promotional materials.

      Manufacturing and Distribution

          With our technologically sophisticated manufacturing and distribution facilities supporting our retail stores, we are a vertically integrated producer and supplier of high-quality nutritional supplements. By controlling the production and distribution of our proprietary products, we can protect product quality, monitor delivery times, and maintain appropriate inventory levels.

      Products

          We offer a wide range of high-quality nutritional supplements sold under our GNC proprietary brand names, including Mega Men, Ultra Mega, Pro Performance, and Preventive Nutrition, and under nationally recognized third-party brand names. We report our sales in four major nutritional supplement categories: VMHS; sports nutrition; diet; and other wellness. We offer an extensive mix of brands and products, including approximately 2,600 SKUs across multiple categories. This variety is designed to provide our customers with a vast selection of products to fit their specific needs. Sales of our proprietary brands at our company-owned stores represented approximately 48% of our net retail product revenues for 2007, 46% for 2006 and 47% for 2005.

          Consumers may purchase a GNC Gold Card in any U.S. GNC store or at www.gnc.com for $15.00. A Gold Card allows a consumer to save 20% on all store and on-line purchases on the day the card is purchased and during the first seven days of every month for a year. Gold Card members also receive personalized mailings and e-mails with product news, nutritional information, and exclusive offers.

          Products are delivered to our retail stores through our distribution centers located in Leetsdale, Pennsylvania; Anderson, South Carolina; and Phoenix, Arizona. Our distribution centers support our company-owned stores as well as franchised stores and Rite Aid locations. Our distribution fleet delivers our finished goods and third-party products through our distribution centers to our company-owned and domestic franchised stores on a weekly or biweekly basis depending on the sales volume of the store. Each of our distribution centers has a quality control department that monitors products received from our vendors to ensure quality standards.

          Based on data collected from our point-of-sale systems, excluding certain required accounting adjustments of $(0.6) million for the period from January 1 to March 15, 2007, $5.0 million for the period from March 16 to December 31, 2007, $0.1 million for 2006, $3.0 million for 2005, and sales from gnc.com of $6.7 million for the period from January 1 to March 15, 2007, $21.6 million for the period from March 16 to December 31, 2007, and $17.1 million in 2006, below is a comparison of our company-owned domestic store retail product sales by major product category and the percentages of our company-owned domestic store retail product sales for the periods shown:

      VMHS

          We sell vitamins and minerals in single vitamin and multi-vitamin form and in different potency levels. Our vitamin and mineral products are available in liquid, tablets, soft gelatin, and hard-shell capsules and powder forms. Many of our special vitamin and mineral formulations, such as Mega Men and Ultra Mega, are available only at GNC locations. In addition to our selection of VMHS products with unique formulations, we also offer the full range of standard “alphabet” vitamins. We sell herbal supplements in various solid dosage and soft gelatin capsules, tea, and liquid forms. We have consolidated our traditional herbal offerings under a single umbrella brand, Herbal Plus ^® . In addition to the Herbal Plus line, we offer a full line of whole food-based supplements and top selling herb and natural remedy products. Our target customers for VMHS products are women over the age of 35.

          We also offer a variety of specialty products in our GNC and Preventive Nutrition product lines. These products emphasize third-party research and available literature regarding the positive benefits from certain ingredients. These offerings include products designed to provide nutritional support to specific areas of the body, such as joints, the heart and blood vessels, and the digestive system.

      Sports Nutrition Products

          Sports nutrition products are designed to be taken in conjunction with an exercise and fitness regimen. Our target consumer for sports nutrition products is the 18-49 year old male. We typically offer a broad selection of sports nutrition products, such as protein and weight gain powders, sports drinks, sports bars, and high potency vitamin formulations, including GNC brands such as Pro Performance and popular third-party products.

      Diet Products

          Diet products consist of various formulas designed to supplement the diet and exercise plans of weight conscious consumers. Our target consumer for diet products is the 18-49 year old female. We typically offer a variety of diet products, including pills, meal replacements, shakes, diet bars, and teas. Our retail stores offer our proprietary and third-party products suitable for different diet and weight management approaches, including low-carbohydrate and products designed to increase thermogenesis (a change in the body’s metabolic rate measured in terms of calories) and metabolism. We also offer several diet products, including our Body Answers ^tm product lines.

      Other Wellness Products

          Other wellness products is a comprehensive category that consists of sales of our Gold Card preferred membership and sales of other nonsupplement products, including cosmetics, food items, health management products, books, and video tapes.

      Product Development

          We believe a key driver of customer traffic and purchases is the introduction of new products. According to the GNC 2005 Awareness Tracking Study Final Report commissioned by GNC from Parker Marketing Research, consumers surveyed rated the availability of “new, innovative products” as an emerging strength of our business. We identify changing customer trends through interactions with our customers and leading industry vendors to assist in the development, manufacturing, and marketing of our new products. We develop proprietary products independently and through the collaborative effort of our dedicated development team. During 2007, we targeted our product development efforts on specialty vitamins and sports nutrition products, condition specific products, and specialty vitamins.

      Research and Development

          We have an internal research and development group that performs scientific research on potential new products and enhancements to existing products, in part to assist our product development team in creating new products, and in part to support claims that may be made as to the purpose and function of the product.

      Retail

          Our Retail segment generates revenues primarily from sales of products to customers at our company-owned stores in the United States and Canada, and in December 2005 we started selling products through our website, www.gnc.com.

      Locations

          As of December 31, 2007, we operated 2,745 company-owned stores across all 50 states and in Canada, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C. Most of our U.S. company-owned stores are between 1,000 and 2,000 square feet and are located primarily in shopping malls and strip shopping centers. Traditional mall and strip center locations typically generate a large percentage of our total retail sales. With the exception of our downtown stores, all of our company-owned stores follow one of two consistent formats, one for mall locations and one for strip shopping center locations. Our store graphics are periodically redesigned to better identify with our GNC customers and provide product information to allow the consumer to make educated decisions regarding product purchases and usage. Our product labeling is consistent within our product lines and the stores are designed to present a unified approach to packaging with emphasis on added information for the consumer. As an on-going practice, we continue to reset and upgrade all of our company-owned stores to maintain a more modern and customer-friendly layout, while promoting our GNC Live Well theme.

      Franchise

          Our Franchise segment is comprised of our domestic and international franchise operations. Our Franchise segment generates revenues from franchise activities primarily through product sales to franchisees, royalties on franchise retail sales, and franchise fees.

          As a means of enhancing our operating performance and building our store base, we began opening franchised locations in 1988. As of December 31, 2007, there were 2,056 franchised stores operating, including 978 stores in the United States and 1,078 stores operating in 49 international locations. Approximately 89% of our franchised stores in the United States are in strip shopping centers and are typically between 1,000 and 2,000 square feet. The international franchised stores are typically smaller and, depending upon the country and cultural preferences, are located in mall, strip center, street, or store-within-a-store locations. Typically, our international stores have a store format and signage similar to our U.S. franchised stores. To assist our franchisees in the successful operation of their stores and to protect our brand image, we offer site selection, construction assistance, accounting services, and

a three-part training program, which consists of classroom instruction and training in a company-owned location, both of which occur prior to the franchised store opening, and actual on-site training during the first week of operations of the franchised store. We believe we have good relationships with our franchisees, as evidenced by our franchisee renewal rate of over 92% between 2002 and 2007. We do not rely heavily on any single franchise operator in the United States, since the largest franchisee owns and/or operates 12 store locations.

          All of our franchised stores in the United States offer both our proprietary products and third-party products, with a product selection similar to that of our company-owned stores. Our international franchised stores offer a more limited product selection than our franchised stores in the United States with the product selection heavily weighted toward proprietary products. Products are distributed to our franchised stores in the United States through our distribution centers and transportation fleet in the same manner as our company-owned stores. Products distributed to our international franchised stores are delivered to the franchisee’s freight forwarder at the U.S. port of deportation, at which point our responsibility for the delivery of the products ends.

      Franchises in the United States

          Revenues from our franchisees in the United States accounted for approximately 72% of our total franchise revenues for the year ended December 31, 2007. In 2007, new franchisees in the United States were required to pay an initial fee of $40,000 for a franchise license. Existing GNC franchise operators may purchase an additional franchise license for a $30,000 fee. We typically offer limited financing to qualified franchisees in the United States for terms up to five years. Once a store begins operations, franchisees are required to pay us a continuing royalty of 6% of sales and contribute 3% of sales to a national advertising fund. Our standard franchise agreements for the United States are effective for a ten-year period with two five-year renewal options. At the end of the initial term and each of the renewal periods, the renewal fee is generally 33% of the franchisee fee that is then in effect. The franchisee renewal option is at our election for all franchise agreements executed after December 1995. Franchisees must meet certain conditions in order to exercise the franchisee renewal option. Our franchisees in the United States receive limited geographical exclusivity and are required to follow the GNC store format.

          Franchisees must meet certain minimum standards and duties prescribed by our franchise operations manual and we conduct periodic field visit reports to ensure our minimum standards are maintained. Generally, we enter into a five-year lease with one five-year renewal option with landlords for our franchised locations in the United States. This allows us to secure space at cost-effective rates, which we sublease to our franchisees at cost. By subleasing to our franchisees, we have greater control over the location and have greater bargaining power for lease negotiations than an individual franchisee typically would have. In addition, we can elect not to renew subleases for underperforming locations. If a franchisee does not meet specified performance and appearance criteria, the franchise agreement outlines the procedures under which we are permitted to terminate the franchise agreement. In these situations, we may take possession of the location, inventory, and equipment, and operate the store as a company-owned store or re-franchise the location. The offering and sale of our franchises in the United States are regulated by the FTC and various stated authorities. See “—Government Regulation—Franchise Regulation.”

      International Franchises

          Revenues from our international franchisees accounted for approximately 28% of our total franchise revenues for the year ended December 31, 2007. In 2007, new international franchisees were required to pay an initial fee of approximately $25,000 for a franchise license for each full size store and on average continuing royalty fees of approximately 5%, with fees and royalties varying depending on the country and the store type. Our franchise program has enabled us to expand into international markets with limited capital expenditures. We expanded our international presence from 557 international

franchised locations at the end of 2002 to 1,078 international locations as of December 31, 2007, without incurring any capital expenditures related to this expansion. We typically generate less revenue from franchises outside the United States due to lower international royalty rates and due to the franchisees purchasing a smaller percentage of products from us compared to our domestic franchisees.

          Franchisees in international locations enter into development agreements with us for either full-size stores, a store-within-a-store at a host location, or wholesale distribution center operations. The development agreement grants the franchisee the right to develop a specific number of stores in a territory, often the entire country. The international franchisee then enters into a franchise agreement for each location. The full-size store franchise agreement has an initial ten-year term with two five-year renewal options. At the end of the initial term and renewal periods, the international franchisee has the option to renew the agreement at 33% of the franchise fee that is then in effect. Franchise agreements for international store-within-a-store locations have an initial term of five years, with two five-year renewal options. At the end of the initial term and each of the renewal periods, the international franchisee of a store-within-a-store location has the option to renew the agreement for up to a maximum of 50% of the franchise fee that is then in effect. Our international franchisees often receive exclusive franchising rights to the entire country franchised, excluding military bases. Our international franchisees must meet minimum standards and duties similar to our U.S. franchisees. Our international franchise agreements and international operations may be regulated by various country, local and international laws. See “—Government Regulation—Franchise Regulation”.

Manufacturing/Wholesale

          Our Manufacturing/Wholesale segment is comprised of our manufacturing operations in South Carolina and our wholesale sales business. This segment supplies our Retail and Franchise segments as well as various third parties with finished products. Our Manufacturing/Wholesale segment generates revenues through sales of manufactured products to third parties, and the sale of our proprietary and third-party brand products to Rite Aid and drugstore.com. Our wholesale operations, including our Rite Aid and drugstore.com wholesale operations, are supported primarily by our Anderson, South Carolina distribution center.

      Manufacturing

          Our technologically sophisticated manufacturing and warehousing facilities support our Retail and Franchise segments and enable us to control the production and distribution of our proprietary products, to better control costs, to protect product quality, to monitor delivery times, and to maintain appropriate inventory levels. We operate two manufacturing facilities, one in Greenville, South Carolina and one in Anderson, South Carolina. We utilize our plants primarily for the production of proprietary products. Our manufacturing operations are designed to allow low-cost production of a variety of products of different quantities, sizes, and packaging configurations while maintaining strict levels of quality control. Our manufacturing procedures are designed to promote consistency and quality in our finished goods. We conduct sample testing on raw materials and finished products, including weight, purity, and micro-bacterial testing. Our manufacturing facilities also service our wholesale operations, including the manufacture and supply of Rite Aid private label products for distribution to Rite Aid locations. We use our available capacity at these facilities to produce products for sale to third-party customers.

          The principal raw materials used in the manufacturing process are natural and synthetic vitamins, herbs, minerals, and gelatin. We maintain multiple sources for the majority of our raw materials, with the remaining being single-sourced due to the uniqueness of the material. As of December 31, 2007, no one vendor supplied more than 10% of our raw materials. Our distribution fleet delivers raw materials and components to our manufacturing facilities and also delivers our finished goods and third-party products to our distribution centers.

      Wholesale

           Store-Within-a-Store Locations

          To increase brand awareness and promote access to customers who may not frequent specialty nutrition stores, we entered into a strategic alliance with Rite Aid to open GNC store-within-a-store locations. As of December 31, 2007, we had 1,358 store-within-a-store locations. Through this strategic alliance, we generate revenues from sales to Rite Aid of our products at wholesale prices, the manufacture of Rite Aid private label products, retail sales of certain consigned inventory and license fees. We are Rite Aid’s sole supplier for the PharmAssure ^® vitamin brand and a number of Rite Aid private label supplements. In the third quarter of 2007, we extended our alliance with Rite Aid through 2014 with a five year option. At December 31, 2007, Rite Aid had opened 140 stores of 1,125 additional stores that Rite Aid has committed to open by December 31, 2014.

           Distribution Agreement with drugstore.com

          We have an internet distribution agreement with drugstore.com, inc. with an initial term through June 2009. Through this strategic alliance, drugstore.com was the exclusive internet retailer of our proprietary products, the PharmAssure vitamin brand, and certain other nutritional supplements until June 2005, when this exclusive relationship terminated. This alliance allows us to access a larger base of customers, who may not otherwise live close to, or have the time to visit, a GNC store and provides an internet distribution channel in addition to www.gnc.com. We generate revenues from the distribution agreement with drugstore.com through sales of our proprietary and third-party products on a wholesale basis and through retail sales of certain other products on a consignment basis.

Employees

          As of December 31, 2007, we had a total of 5,158 full-time and 8,081 part-time employees, of whom approximately 10,753 were employed in our Retail segment; 33 were employed in our Franchise segment; 1,307 were employed in our Manufacturing/Wholesale segment; 475 were employed in corporate support functions; and 671 were employed in Canada. None of our employees belongs to a union or is a party to any collective bargaining or similar agreement. We consider our relationships with our employees to be good.

Competition

          The U.S. nutritional supplements retail industry is a large, highly fragmented, and growing industry, with no single industry participant accounting for a majority of total industry retail sales. Competition is based primarily on price, quality, and assortment of products, customer service, marketing support, and availability of new products. In addition, the market is highly sensitive to the introduction of new products.

          We compete with publicly owned and privately owned companies, which are highly fragmented in terms of geographical market coverage and product categories. We compete with other specialty retailers, supermarkets, drugstores, mass merchants, multi-level marketing organizations, mail-order companies, other internet sites, and a variety of other smaller participants. In addition, we believe that the market is highly sensitive to the introduction of new products, including various prescription drugs, which may rapidly capture a significant share of the market. In the United States, we compete with supermarkets, drugstores, and mass merchants with heavily advertised national brands manufactured by large pharmaceutical and food companies and other retailers. Most supermarkets, drugstores, and mass merchants have narrow product offerings limited primarily to simple vitamins and herbs and popular third-party

diet products. Our international competitors also include large international pharmacy chains and major international supermarket chains as well as other large U.S.-based companies with international operations. Our wholesale and manufacturing operations also compete with other wholesalers and manufacturers of third-party nutritional supplements.

Trademarks and Other Intellectual Property

          We believe trademark protection is particularly important to the maintenance of the recognized brand names under which we market our products. We own or have rights to material trademarks or trade names that we use in conjunction with the sale of our products, including the GNC brand name. We also rely upon trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovations, and licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our competitive position. We protect our intellectual property rights through a variety of methods, including trademark, patent, and trade secret laws, as well as confidentiality agreements and proprietary information agreements with vendors, employees, consultants, and others who have access to our proprietary information. Protection of our intellectual property often affords us the opportunity to enhance our position in the marketplace by precluding our competitors from using or otherwise exploiting our technology and brands. We are also a party to several intellectual property license agreements relating to certain of our products. For example, we are a party to license agreements entered into in connection with the Numico acquisition pursuant to which we license certain patent rights to Numico and Numico licenses to us specific patent rights and proprietary information. These license agreements generally continue in existence until the expiration of the licensed patent, if applicable, the licensee’s election to terminate the agreement, or the mutual consent of the parties. The patents which we own generally have a term of 20 years from their filing date, although none of our owned or licensed patents are currently associated with a material portion of our business. The duration of our trademark registrations is generally 10, 15, or 20 years, depending on the country in which the marks are registered, and the registrations can be renewed by us. The scope and duration of our intellectual property protection varies throughout the world by jurisdiction and by individual product.

Insurance and Risk Management

          We purchase insurance to cover standard risks in the nutritional supplements industry, including policies to cover general products liability, workers’ compensation, auto liability, and other casualty and property risks. Our insurance rates are dependent upon our safety record as well as trends in the insurance industry. We also maintain workers’ compensation insurance and auto insurance policies that are retrospective in that the cost per year will vary depending on the frequency and severity of claims in the policy year. We currently maintain product liability insurance and general liability insurance.

          We face an inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims in the event that, among other things, the use of products sold by GNC results in injury. With respect to product liability coverage, we carry insurance coverage typical of our industry and product lines. Our coverage involves self-insured retentions with primary and excess liability coverage above the retention amount. We have the ability to refer claims to most of our vendors and their insurers to pay the costs associated with any claims arising from such vendors’ products. In many cases, our insurance covers such claims that are not adequately covered by a vendor’s insurance and provides for excess secondary coverage above the limits provided by our product vendors.

          We self-insure certain property and casualty risks due to our analysis of the risk, the frequency and severity of a loss, and the cost of insurance for the risk. We believe that the amount of self-insurance is not significant and will not have an adverse impact on our performance. In addition, we may from time to time self-insure liability with respect to specific ingredients in products that we may sell.

Government Regulation

      Product Regulation

           Domestic

          The processing, formulation, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, advertising, and distribution of our products are subject to regulation by one or more federal agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), the FTC, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency. These activities are also regulated by various agencies of the states and localities in which our products are sold. Pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), the FDA regulates the formulation, safety, manufacture, packaging, labeling, and distribution of dietary supplements, (including vitamins, minerals, and herbs), and over-the-counter drugs. The FTC has jurisdiction to regulate the advertising of these products.

          The FDCA has been amended several times with respect to dietary supplements, in particular by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (“DSHEA”). DSHEA established a new framework governing the composition, safety, labeling and marketing of dietary supplements. “Dietary supplements” are defined as vitamins, minerals, herbs, other botanicals, amino acids, and other dietary substances for human use to supplement the diet, as well as concentrates, metabolites, constituents, extracts, or combinations of such dietary ingredients. Generally, under DSHEA, dietary ingredients that were marketed in the United States prior to October 15, 1994 may be used in dietary supplements without notifying the FDA. “New” dietary ingredients (i.e., dietary ingredients that were “not marketed in the United States before October 15, 1994”) must be the subject of a new dietary ingredient notification submitted to the FDA unless the ingredient has been “present in the food supply as an article used for food” without being “chemically altered.” A new dietary ingredient notification must provide the FDA evidence of a “history of use or other evidence of safety” establishing that use of the dietary ingredient “will reasonably be expected to be safe.” A new dietary ingredient notification must be submitted to the FDA at least 75 days before the initial marketing of the new dietary ingredient. The FDA may determine that a new dietary ingredient notification does not provide an adequate basis to conclude that a dietary ingredient is reasonably expected to be safe. Such a determination could prevent the marketing of such dietary ingredient. The FDA has announced that it plans to issue a guidance governing notification of new dietary ingredients. While FDA guidance is not mandatory, they are a strong indication of the FDA’s current views on the topic of the guidance, including its position on enforcement. Depending upon the recommendations made in the guidance, particularly those relating to animal or human testing, such guidance could make it more difficult for us to successfully notify new dietary ingredients.

          The FDA issued a consumer warning in 1996, followed by proposed regulations in 1997, covering dietary supplements that contain ephedrine alkaloids, which are obtained from the botanical species ephedra and are commonly referred to as ephedra. In February 2003 the Department of Health and Human Services announced a series of actions that the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA planned to execute with respect to products containing ephedra, including the solicitation of evidence regarding the significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury from dietary supplements containing ephedra and the immediate execution of a series of actions against ephedra products making unsubstantiated claims about sports performance enhancement. In addition, many states proposed regulations and three states enacted laws restricting the promotion and distribution of ephedra-containing dietary supplements. The botanical ingredient ephedra was formerly used in several third-party and private label dietary supplement products. In January 2003, we began focusing our diet category on products that would replace ephedra products. In early 2003, we instructed all of our locations to stop selling products containing ephedra that were manufactured by GNC or one of our affiliates. Subsequently, we instructed all of our locations to stop selling any products containing ephedra by June 30, 2003. Sales of products containing ephedra amounted to approximately $35.2 million or 3.3% of our retail sales in 2003 and $182.9 million, or 17.1% of our retail sales in 2002. In February 2004, the FDA issued a final regulation declaring dietary supplements containing ephedra illegal under the FDCA because they present an unreasonable risk of illness or injury under the conditions of use recommended or suggested in labeling, or if no conditions of use are suggested or recommended in labeling, under

ordinary conditions of use. The rule took effect April 12, 2004 and banned the sale of dietary supplement products containing ephedra. Similarly, the FDA issued a consumer advisory in 2002 with respect to dietary supplements that contain the ingredient Kava Kava, and the FDA is currently investigating adverse effects associated with ingestion of this ingredient. One of our subsidiaries, Nutra Manufacturing, Inc., manufactured products containing Kava Kava from December 1995 until August 2002. All stores were instructed to stop selling products containing Kava Kava in December 2002. The FDA could take similar actions against other products or product ingredients which it determines present an unreasonable health risk to consumers.

          DSHEA permits “statements of nutritional support” to be included in labeling for dietary supplements without FDA pre-market approval. Such statements must be submitted to the FDA within 30 days of marketing, and dietary supplements bearing such claims must include a label disclosure that “This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.” Such statements may describe how a particular dietary ingredient affects the structure, function, or general well-being of the body, or the mechanism of action by which a dietary ingredient may affect body structure, function, or well-being, but may not expressly or implicitly represent that a dietary supplement will diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent a disease. A company that uses a statement of nutritional support in labeling must possess scientific evidence substantiating that the statement is truthful and not misleading. If the FDA determines that a particular statement of nutritional support is an unacceptable drug claim or an unauthorized version of a “health claim,” or, if the FDA determines that a particular claim is not adequately supported by existing scientific data or is false or misleading, we would be prevented from using the claim.

          In addition, DSHEA provides that so-called “third-party literature,” e.g., a reprint of a peer-reviewed scientific publication linking a particular dietary ingredient with health benefits, may be used “in connection with the sale of a dietary supplement to consumers” without the literature being subject to regulation as labeling. The literature: (1) must not be false or misleading; (2) may not “promote” a particular manufacturer or brand of dietary supplement; (3) must present a balanced view of the available scientific information on the subject matter; (4) if displayed in an establishment, must be physically separate from the dietary supplements; and (5) should not have appended to it any information by sticker or any other method. If the literature fails to satisfy each of these requirements, we may be prevented from disseminating such literature with our products, and any dissemination could subject our product to regulatory action as an illegal drug.

          On June 22, 2007, the FDA issued a final rule establishing regulations to require good manufacturing practices (“GMPs”) for dietary supplements. The regulations establish the GMPs to ensure quality throughout the manufacturing, packaging, labeling, and storing of dietary supplements. The final rule includes requirements for establishing quality control procedures, designing and constructing manufacturing plants, testing ingredients and the finished product, recordkeeping, and handling consumer product complaints. As a companion document, the FDA also issued an interim final rule that outlines a petition process for manufacturers to request an exemption to the GMP requirement for 100 percent identity testing of specific dietary ingredients used in the processing of dietary supplements. Under the interim final rule, the manufacturer may be exempted from the dietary ingredient identity testing requirement if it can provide sufficient documentation that the reduced frequency of testing requested would still ensure the identity of the dietary ingredient. Companies with more than 500 employees have until June 2008 to comply with the new regulations, companies with less than 500 employees have until June 2009 to comply, and companies with fewer than 20 employees have until June 2010 to comply. We or our third-party suppliers or vendors may not be able to comply with the new rules without incurring substantial additional expenses. In addition, if our third-party suppliers or vendors are not able to timely comply with the new rules, we may experience increased costs or delays in obtaining certain raw materials and third-party products.

          In December 2006, Congress passed the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Consumer Protection Act (S3546) (“Act”). The Act, which became effective in December 2007, mandates reporting of “serious adverse events” associated with dietary supplements and over-the-counter drugs to FDA by a

manufacturer, packer, or distributor whose name appears on the label of the product. Records must be maintained of all adverse events for six years after receipt. The Act also makes submission of a false report to FDA illegal. We may not be able to comply with the new requirements without incurring substantial additional expenses.

          The FDA has broad authority to enforce the provisions of the FDCA applicable to dietary supplements, including powers to issue a public warning or notice of violation letter to a company, to publicize information about illegal products, detain products intended for import, to request a recall of illegal products from the market, and to request the Department of Justice to initiate a seizure action, an injunction action, or a criminal prosecution in the United States courts. The regulation of dietary supplements may increase or become more restrictive in the future.

          Legislation may be introduced which, if passed, would impose substantial new regulatory requirements on dietary supplements. HR 1249 would subject the dietary ingredient dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) to the requirements of the Controlled Substances Act, which would prevent our ability to sell products containing DHEA. S 2470 would amend the Controlled Substances Act to restrict the sale of DHEA-containing dietary supplements to minors. In October 2004, legislation was passed subjecting specified substances formerly used in some dietary supplements, such as androstenedione or “andro,” to the requirements of the Controlled Substances Act. Under the 2004 law, these substances can no longer be sold as dietary supplements.

          The FTC exercises jurisdiction over the advertising of dietary supplements and over-the-counter drugs. In recent years, the FTC has instituted numerous enforcement actions against dietary supplement companies for failure to have adequate substantiation for claims made in advertising or for the use of false or misleading advertising claims. We continue to be subject to three consent orders issued by the FTC. In 1984, the FTC instituted an investigation of General Nutrition, Incorporated, one of our subsidiaries, alleging deceptive acts and practices in connection with the advertising and marketing of certain of its products. General Nutrition, Incorporated accepted a proposed consent order which was finalized in 1989, under which it agreed to refrain from, among other things, making certain claims with respect to certain of its products unless the claims are based on and substantiated by reliable and competent scientific evidence, and paid an aggregate of $0.6 million to the American Diabetes Association, Inc., the American Cancer Society, Inc., and the American Heart Association for the support of research in the fields of nutrition, obesity, or physical fitness. We also entered into a consent order in 1970 with the FTC, which generally addressed “iron deficiency anemia” type products. As a result of routine monitoring by the FTC, disputes arose concerning its compliance with these orders and with regard to advertising for certain hair care products. While General Nutrition, Incorporated believes that, at all times, it operated in material compliance with the orders, it entered into a settlement in 1994 with the FTC to avoid protracted litigation. As a part of this settlement, General Nutrition, Incorporated entered into a consent decree and paid, without admitting liability, a civil penalty in the amount of $2.4 million and agreed to adhere to the terms of the 1970 and 1989 consent orders and to abide by the provisions of the settlement document concerning hair care products. We do not believe that future compliance with the outstanding consent decrees will materially affect our business operations. In 2000, the FTC amended the 1970 order to clarify language in it that was believed to be ambiguous and outmoded.

          The FTC continues to monitor our advertising and, from time to time, requests substantiation with respect to such advertising to assess compliance with the various outstanding consent decrees and with the Federal Trade Commission Act. Our policy is to use advertising that complies with the consent decrees and applicable regulations. We review all products brought into our distribution centers to assure that such products and their labels comply with the consent decrees. We also review the use of third-party point of purchase materials such as store signs and promotional brochures. Nevertheless, there can be no assurance that inadvertent failures to comply with the consent decrees and applicable regulations will not occur. Some of the products sold by franchised stores are purchased by franchisees directly from other vendors and these products do not flow through our distribution centers. Although franchise contracts contain strict requirements for store operations, including compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations, we cannot exercise the same degree of control over franchisees as we do over our company-owned stores. As a result of our efforts to comply with applicable statutes and

regulations, we have from time to time reformulated, eliminated, or relabeled certain of our products and revised certain provisions of our sales and marketing program. We believe we are in material compliance with the various consent decrees and with applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations concerning our products and marketing program. Compliance with the provisions of national, state, and local environmental laws and regulations has not had a material effect upon our capital expenditures, earnings, financial position, liquidity, or competitive position.

           Foreign

          Our products sold in foreign countries are also subject to regulation under various national, local, and international laws that include provisions governing, among other things, the formulation, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, advertising, and distribution of dietary supplements and over-the-counter drugs. Government regulations in foreign countries may prevent or delay the introduction, or require the reformulation, of certain of our products.

      New Legislation or Regulation

          We cannot determine what effect additional domestic or international governmental legislation, regulations, or administrative orders, when and if promulgated, would have on our business in the future. New legislation or regulations may require the reformulation of certain products to meet new standards, require the recall or discontinuance of certain products not capable of reformulation, impose additional record keeping, or require expanded documentation of the properties of certain products, expanded or different labeling, or scientific substantiation.

      Franchise Regulation

          We must comply with regulations adopted by the FTC and with several state laws that regulate the offer and sale of franchises. The FTC’s Trade Regulation Rule on Franchising and certain state laws require that we furnish prospective franchisees with a franchise offering circular containing information prescribed by the Trade Regulation Rule on Franchising and applicable state laws and regulations.

          We also must comply with a number of state laws that regulate some substantive aspects of the franchisor-franchisee relationship. These laws may limit a franchisor’s business practices in a number of ways, including limiting the ability to:

	•		terminate or not renew a franchise without good cause;
	•		interfere with the right of free association among franchisees;
	•		disapprove the transfer of a franchise;
	•		discriminate among franchisees with regard to franchise terms and charges, royalties, and other fees; and
	•		place new stores near existing franchises.

          To date, these laws have not precluded us from seeking franchisees in any given area and have not had a material adverse effect on our operations. Bills intended to regulate certain aspects of franchise relationships have been introduced into Congress on several occasions during the last decade, but none have been enacted. Revisions to the FTC rule have also been proposed by the FTC and currently are in the comment stage of the rulemaking process.

          Our international franchise agreements and franchise operations are regulated by various foreign laws, rules, and regulations. To date, these laws have not precluded us from seeking franchisees in any given area and have not had a material adverse effect on our operations.

      Environmental Compliance

          We are subject to numerous federal, state, local, and foreign environmental and health and safety laws and regulations governing our operations, including the handling, transportation, and disposal of our non-hazardous and hazardous substances and wastes, as well as emissions and discharges from our operations into the environment, including discharges to air, surface water, and groundwater. Failure to comply with such laws and regulations could result in costs for remedial actions, penalties, or the imposition of other liabilities. New laws, changes in existing laws or the interpretation thereof, or the development of new facts or changes in our processes could also cause us to incur additional capital and operation expenditures to maintain compliance with environmental laws and regulations and environmental permits. We also are subject to laws and regulations that impose liability and cleanup responsibility for releases of hazardous substances into the environment without regard to fault or knowledge about the condition or action causing the liability. Under certain of these laws and regulations, such liabilities can be imposed for cleanup of previously owned or operated properties, or for properties to which substances or wastes were sent in connection with current or former operations at our facilities. The presence of contamination from such substances or wastes could also adversely affect our ability to sell or lease our properties, or to use them as collateral for financing. From time to time, we have incurred costs and obligations for correcting environmental and health and safety noncompliance matters and for remediation at or relating to certain of our properties or properties at which our waste has been disposed. We believe we have complied with, and are currently complying with, our environmental obligations pursuant to environmental and health and safety laws and regulations and that any liabilities for noncompliance will not have a material adverse effect on our business or financial performance. However, it is difficult to predict future liabilities and obligations, which could be material.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS.

          The following risk factors, among others, could cause our financial performance to differ significantly from the goals, plans, objectives, intentions and expectations expressed in this report. If any of the following risks and uncertainties or other risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or not currently considered to be material actually occur, our business, financial condition, or operating results could be harmed substantially.

Risks Relating to Our Business and Industry

We operate in a highly competitive industry. Our failure to compete effectively could adversely affect our market share, revenues, and growth prospects.

          The U.S. nutritional supplements retail industry is large and highly fragmented. Participants include specialty retailers, supermarkets, drugstores, mass merchants, multi-level marketing organizations, on-line merchants, mail-order companies, and a variety of other smaller participants. We believe that the market is also highly sensitive to the introduction of new products, including various prescription drugs, which may rapidly capture a significant share of the market. In the United States, we also compete for sales with heavily advertised national brands manufactured by large pharmaceutical and food companies, as well as other retailers. In addition, as some products become more mainstream, we experience increased competition for those products as more participants enter the market. For example, when the trend in favor of low-carbohydrate products developed, we experienced increased competition for our diet products from supermarkets, drug stores, mass merchants, and other food companies, which adversely affected sales of our diet products. Our international competitors include large international pharmacy chains, major international supermarket chains, and other large U.S.-based companies with international operations. Our wholesale and manufacturing operations compete with other wholesalers and manufacturers of third-party nutritional supplements. We may not be able to compete effectively and our attempt to do so may require us to reduce our prices, which may result in lower margins. Failure to effectively compete could adversely affect our market share, revenues, and growth prospects.

Unfavorable publicity or consumer perception of our products and any similar products distributed by other companies could cause fluctuations in our operating results and could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, the demand for our products, and our ability to generate revenues.

          We are highly dependent upon consumer perception of the safety and quality of our products, as well as similar products distributed by other companies. Consumer perception of products can be significantly influenced by scientific research or findings, national media attention, and other publicity about product use. A product may be received favorably, resulting in high sales associated with that product that may not be sustainable as consumer preferences change. Future scientific research or publicity could be unfavorable to our industry or any of our particular products and may not be consistent with earlier favorable research or publicity. A future research report or publicity that is perceived by our consumers as less favorable or that questions earlier research or publicity could have a material adverse effect on our ability to generate revenues. For example, sales of some of our VMHS products, such as St. John’s Wort, Sam-e, and Melatonin, and more recently sales of Vitamin E, were initially strong, but we believe decreased substantially as a result of negative publicity. As a result of the above factors, our operations may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter, which may impair our ability to make payments when due on our debt. Period-to-period comparisons of our results should not be relied upon as a measure of our future performance. Adverse publicity in the form of published scientific research or otherwise, whether or not accurate, that associates consumption of our products or any other similar products with illness or other adverse effects, that questions the benefits of our or similar products, or that claims that such products are ineffective could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, the demand for our products, and our ability to generate revenues.

Our failure to appropriately respond to changing consumer preferences and demand for new products could significantly harm our customer relationships and product sales.

          Our business is particularly subject to changing consumer trends and preferences, especially with respect to our diet products. For example, the recent trend in favor of low-carbohydrate diets was not as dependent on diet products as many other dietary programs, which caused and may continue to cause a significant reduction in sales in our diet category. Our continued success depends in part on our ability to anticipate and respond to these changes, and we may not be able to respond in a timely or commercially appropriate manner to these changes. If we are unable to do so, our customer relationships and product sales could be harmed significantly.

          Furthermore, the nutritional supplement industry is characterized by rapid and frequent changes in demand for products and new product introductions. Our failure to accurately predict these trends could negatively impact consumer opinion of our stores as a source for the latest products. This could harm our customer relationships and cause losses to our market share. The success of our new product offerings depends upon a number of factors, including our ability to:

	•		accurately anticipate customer needs;
	•		innovate and develop new products;
	•		successfully commercialize new products in a timely manner;
	•		price our products competitively;
	•		manufacture and deliver our products in sufficient volumes and in a timely manner; and
	•		differentiate our product offerings from those of our competitors.

          If we do not introduce new products or make enhancements to meet the changing needs of our customers in a timely manner, some of our products could become obsolete, which could have a material adverse effect on our revenues and operating results.

We depend on the services of key executives and changes in our management team could affect our business strategy and adversely impact our performance and results of operations.

          Some of our senior executives are important to our success because they have been instrumental in setting our strategic direction, operating our business, identifying, recruiting and training key personnel, identifying opportunities and arranging necessary financing. Losing the services of any of these individuals could adversely affect our business until a suitable replacement could be found. We believe that they could not quickly be replaced with executives of equal experience and capabilities. Many of our executives are not bound by employment agreements with us, nor do we maintain key person life insurance policies on any of our executives. See Item 11, “Executive Compensation”.

          In the last two years, we have experienced significant management changes. In December 2004, our then Chief Executive Officer resigned. In 2005, six of our then executive officers resigned at different times, including our former Chief Executive Officer, who served in that position for approximately five months. In November 2005, our board of directors appointed Joseph Fortunato, then our Chief Operating Officer, as our Chief Executive Officer. Some of these changes were the result of the officer’s personal decision to pursue other opportunities. The remaining changes were instituted by us as part of strategic initiatives executed in 2005. Effective April 17, 2006, our Chief Operating Officer resigned to become a senior officer of Linens ‘n Things, Inc. Until March 2007, following completion of the Merger, he continued to serve as Merchandising Counselor. In April 2006, we appointed a new Chief Merchandising Officer, who resigned effective April 28, 2006, because of disagreements about the direction of our merchandising efforts. Our Executive Chairman of the Board, Robert J. DiNicola resigned immediately prior to the closing of the Merger.

In addition, Susan Trimbo resigned effective March 31, 2007 as our Senior Vice President of Scientific Affairs, Mark Weintrub resigned effective September 30, 2007 as our Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer and Curt Larrimer resigned effective December 31, 2007 as our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Although the duties of Chief Financial Officer are being performed by J. Kenneth Fox, Senior Vice President and Treasurer, we have not yet identified a permanent replacement for Mr. Larrimer. We will continue to enhance our management team as necessary to strengthen our business for future growth. Although we do not anticipate additional significant management changes, these and other changes in management could result in changes to, or impact the execution of, our business strategy. Any such changes could be significant and could have a negative impact on our performance and results of operations. In addition, if we are unable to successfully transition members of management into their new positions, management resources could be constrained.

Compliance with new and existing governmental regulations could increase our costs significantly and adversely affect our results of operations.

          The processing, formulation, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, advertising, and distribution of our products are subject to federal laws and regulation by one or more federal agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. These activities are also regulated by various state, local, and international laws and agencies of the states and localities in which our products are sold. Government regulations may prevent or delay the introduction, or require the reformulation, of our products, which could result in lost revenues and increased costs to us. For instance, the FDA regulates, among other things, the composition, safety, labeling, and marketing of dietary supplements (including vitamins, minerals, herbs, and other dietary ingredients for human use). The FDA may not accept the evidence of safety for any new dietary ingredient that we may wish to market, may determine that a particular dietary supplement or ingredient presents an unacceptable health risk, and may determine that a particular claim or statement of nutritional value that we use to support the marketing of a dietary supplement is an impermissible drug claim, is not substantiated, or is an unauthorized version of a “health claim.” See Item 1, “Business—Government regulations—Product regulation.” Any of these actions could prevent us from marketing particular dietary supplement products or making certain claims or statements of nutritional support for them. The FDA could also require us to remove a particular product from the market. For example, in April 2004, the FDA banned the sale of products containing ephedra. Sale of products containing ephedra amounted to approximately $35.2 million, or 3.3%, of our retail sales in 2003 and approximately $182.9 million, or 17.1%, of our retail sales in 2002. Any future recall or removal would result in additional costs to us, including lost revenues from any additional products that we are required to remove from the market, any of which could be material. Any product recalls or removals could also lead to liability, substantial costs, and reduced growth prospects.

          Additional or more stringent regulations of dietary supplements and other products have been considered from time to time. These developments could require reformulation of some products to meet new standards, recalls or discontinuance of some products not able to be reformulated, additional record-keeping requirements, increased documentation of the properties of some products, additional or different labeling, additional scientific substantiation, adverse event reporting, or other new requirements. Any of these developments could increase our costs significantly. For example, the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act (S3546) which was passed by Congress in December 2006, imposes significant new regulatory requirements on dietary supplements including reporting of “serious adverse events” to FDA and recordkeeping requirements. Although regulatory requirements created by the new legislation will not become mandatory until December 2007, this new legislation could raise our costs and negatively impact our business. In June 2007, the FDA adopted final regulations on Good Manufacturing Practice in manufacturing, packaging, or holding dietary ingredients and dietary supplements, which will apply to the products we manufacture. These regulations require dietary supplements to be prepared, packaged, and held in compliance with certain rules. Although we will have until June 2008 to comply with these new regulations, they could raise our costs and negatively impact our business. Additionally, our third-party suppliers or vendors may not be able to comply with the new rules without incurring substantial expenses. If our third-party suppliers or vendors are not able to timely

comply with the new rules, we may experience increased cost or delays in obtaining certain raw materials and third-party products. Also, the FDA has announced that it plans to publish a guidance governing the notification of new dietary ingredients in 2007. Although FDA guidance is not mandatory, it is a strong indication of the FDA’s current views on the topic discussed in the guidance, including its position on enforcement. Depending on its recommendations, particularly those relating to animal or human testing, such guidance could also raise our costs and negatively impact our business. We may not be able to comply with the new rules without incurring additional expenses, which could be significant. See Item 1, “Business—Government regulation—Product regulation” for additional information.

Our failure to comply with FTC regulations and existing consent decrees imposed on us by the FTC could result in substantial monetary penalties and could adversely affect our operating results.

          The FTC exercises jurisdiction over the advertising of dietary supplements and has instituted numerous enforcement actions against dietary supplement companies, including us, for failure to have adequate substantiation for claims made in advertising or for the use of false or misleading advertising claims. As a result of these enforcement actions, we are currently subject to three consent decrees that limit our ability to make certain claims with respect to our products and required us to pay civil penalties and other amounts in the aggregate amount of $3.0 million. See Item 1, “Business—Government regulation—Product regulation.” Failure by us or our franchisees to comply with the consent decrees and applicable regulations could occur from time to time. Violations of these orders could result in substantial monetary penalties, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

We may incur material product liability claims, which could increase our costs and adversely affect our reputation, revenues, and operating income.

          As a retailer, distributor, and manufacturer of products designed for human consumption, we are subject to product liability claims if the use of our products is alleged to have resulted in injury. Our products consist of vitamins, minerals, herbs, and other ingredients that are classified as foods or dietary supplements and are not subject to pre-market regulatory approval in the United States. Our products could contain contaminated substances, and some of our products contain ingredients that do not have long histories of human consumption. Previously unknown adverse reactions resulting from human consumption of these ingredients could occur. In addition, third-party manufacturers produce many of the products we sell. As a distributor of products manufactured by third parties, we may also be liable for various product liability claims for products we do not manufacture. We have been and may be subject to various product liability claims, including, among others, that our products include inadequate instructions for use or inadequate warnings concerning possible side effects and interactions with other substances. For example, as of February 29, 2008, we have been named as a defendant in 2 pending cases involving the sale of products that contain ephedra. See Item 1, “Business—Legal Proceedings.” Any product liability claim against us could result in increased costs and could adversely affect our reputation with our customers, which in turn could adversely affect our revenues and operating income. All claims to date have been tendered to the third-party manufacturer or to our insurer, and we have incurred no expense to date with respect to litigation involving ephedra products. Furthermore, we are entitled to indemnification by Numico for losses arising from claims related to products containing ephedra sold before December 5, 2003. All of the pending cases relate to products sold before that time.

Our operations are subject to environmental and health and safety laws and regulations that may increase our cost of operations or expose us to environmental liabilities.

          Our operations are subject to environmental and health and safety laws and regulations, and some of our operations require environmental permits and controls to prevent and limit pollution of the environment. We could incur significant costs as a result of violations of, or liabilities under, environmental laws and regulations, or to maintain compliance with such environmental laws, regulations, or permit requirements.

Because we rely on our manufacturing operations to produce nearly all of the proprietary products we sell, disruptions in our manufacturing system or losses of manufacturing certifications could adversely affect our sales and customer relationships.

          Our manufacturing operations produced approximately 34% of the products we sold for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006. Other than powders and liquids, nearly all of our proprietary products are produced in our manufacturing facility located in Greenville, South Carolina. As of December 31, 2007, no one vendor supplied more than 10% of our raw materials. In the event any of our third-party suppliers or vendors were to become unable or unwilling to continue to provide raw materials in the required volumes and quality levels or in a timely manner, we would be required to identify and obtain acceptable replacement supply sources. If we are unable to obtain alternative supply sources, our business could be adversely affected. Any significant disruption in our operations at our Greenville, South Carolina facility for any reason, including regulatory requirements or the loss of certifications, power interruptions, fires, hurricanes, war, or other force of nature, could disrupt our supply of products, adversely affecting our sales and customer relationships.

If we fail to protect our brand name, competitors may adopt trade names that dilute the value of our brand name.

          We have invested significant resources to promote our GNC brand name in order to obtain the public recognition that we have today. However, we may be unable or unwilling to strictly enforce our trademark in each jurisdiction in which we do business. In addition, because of the differences in foreign trademark laws concerning proprietary rights, our trademark may not receive the same degree of protection in foreign countries as it does in the United States. Also, we may not always be able to successfully enforce our trademark against competitors or against challenges by others. For example, a third party is currently challenging our right to register in the United States certain marks that incorporate our “GNC Live Well” trademark. This third party initiated proceedings in the United Stated Patent and Trademark Office to cancel four registrations for our “GNC Live Well” mark. Subsequently, we permitted three of these registrations to lapse and the Patent and Trademark Office has cancelled the fourth registration. Other third parties are also challenging our “GNC Live Well” trademark in foreign jurisdictions. Our failure to successfully protect our trademark could diminish the value and effectiveness of our past and future marketing efforts and could cause customer confusion. This could in turn adversely affect our revenues and profitability.

Intellectual property litigation and infringement claims against us could cause us to incur significant expenses or prevent us from manufacturing, selling, or using some aspect of our products, which could adversely affect our revenues and market share.

          We are currently and may in the future be subject to intellectual property litigation and infringement claims, which could cause us to incur significant expenses or prevent us from manufacturing, selling, or using some aspect of our products. Claims of intellectual property infringement also may require us to enter into costly royalty or license agreements. However, we may be unable to obtain royalty or license agreements on terms acceptable to us or at all. Claims that our technology or products infringe on intellectual property rights could be costly and would divert the attention of management and key personnel, which in turn could adversely affect our revenues and profitability.

A substantial amount of our revenues are generated from our franchisees, and our revenues could decrease significantly if our franchisees do not conduct their operations profitably or if we fail to attract new franchisees.

          As of December 31, 2007 approximately 33%, and as of December 31, 2006 approximately 34%, of our retail locations were operated by franchisees. Our franchise operations generated approximately 15.5% of our revenues for the year ended December 31, 2007 and approximately 15.6% of our revenues for the same period in 2006. Our revenues from franchised stores depend on the franchisees’ ability to operate their stores profitably and adhere to our franchise standards. The closing of unprofitable franchised stores or the failure of franchisees to comply with our policies could adversely affect our

reputation and could reduce the amount of our franchise revenues. These factors could have a material adverse effect on our revenues and operating income.

          If we are unable to attract new franchisees or to convince existing franchisees to open additional stores, any growth in royalties from franchised stores will depend solely upon increases in revenues at existing franchised stores, which could be minimal. In addition, our ability to open additional franchised locations is limited by the territorial restrictions in our existing franchise agreements as well as our ability to identify additional markets in the United States and other countries that are not currently saturated with the products we offer. If we are unable to open additional franchised locations, we will have to sustain additional growth internally by attracting new and repeat customers to our existing locations.

Economic, political, and other risks associated with our international operations could adversely affect our revenues and international growth prospects.

          As of December 31, 2007, we had 147 company-owned Canadian stores and 1,078 international franchised stores in 49 international markets. We derived 9.5% of our revenues for the year ended December 31, 2007 and 8.7% of our revenues for 2006 from our international operations. As part of our business strategy, we intend to expand our international franchise presence. Our international operations are subject to a number of risks inherent to operating in foreign countries, and any expansion of our international operations will increase the effects of these risks. These risks include, among others:

	•		political and economic instability of foreign markets;
	•		foreign governments’ restrictive trade policies;
	•		inconsistent product regulation or sudden policy changes by foreign agencies or governments;
	•		the imposition of, or increase in, duties, taxes, government royalties, or non-tariff trade barriers;
	•		difficulty in collecting international accounts receivable and potentially longer payment cycles;
	•		increased costs in maintaining international franchise and marketing efforts;
	•		difficulty in operating our manufacturing facility abroad and procuring supplies from overseas suppliers;
	•		exchange controls;
	•		problems entering international markets with different cultural bases and consumer preferences; and
	•		fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates.

Any of these risks could have a material adverse effect on our international operations and our growth strategy.

Franchise regulations could limit our ability to terminate or replace under-performing franchises, which could adversely impact franchise revenues.

          Our franchise activities are subject to federal, state, and international laws regulating the offer and sale of franchises and the governance of our franchise relationships. These laws impose registration, extensive disclosure requirements, and bonding requirements on the offer and sale of franchises. In some jurisdictions, the laws relating to the governance of our franchise relationship impose fair dealing standards during the term of the franchise relationship and limitations on our ability to terminate or refuse to renew a franchise. We may, therefore, be required to retain an under-performing franchise and may be

unable to replace the franchisee, which could adversely impact franchise revenues. In addition, we cannot predict the nature and effect of any future legislation or regulation on our franchise operations.

We are not insured for a significant portion of our claims exposure, which could materially and adversely affect our operating income and profitability.

          We have procured insurance independently for the following areas: (1) general liability; (2) product liability; (3) directors and officers liability; (4) property insurance; (5) workers’ compensation insurance; and (6) various other areas. We are self-insured for other areas, including: (1) medical benefits; (2) workers’ compensation coverage in New York, with a stop loss of $250,000; (3) physical damage to our tractors, trailers, and fleet vehicles for field personnel use; and (4) physical damages that may occur at company-owned stores. We are not insured for some property and casualty risks due to the frequency and severity of a loss, the cost of insurance, and the overall risk analysis. In addition, we carry product liability insurance coverage that requires us to pay deductibles/retentions with primary and excess liability coverage above the deductible/retention amount. Because of our deductibles and self-insured retention amounts, we have significant exposure to fluctuations in the number and severity of claims. We currently maintain product liability insurance with a retention of $2.0 million per claim with an aggregate cap on retained loss of $10.0 million. As a result, our insurance and claims expense could increase in the future. Alternatively, we could raise our deductibles/retentions, which would increase our already significant exposure to expense from claims. If any claim exceeds our coverage, we would bear the excess expense, in addition to our other self-insured amounts. If the frequency or severity of claims or our expenses increase, our operating income and profitability could be materially adversely affected. See Item 3, “Legal proceedings.”

The controlling stockholders of our Parent may take actions that conflict with the interests of other stockholders and investors. This control may have the effect of delaying or preventing changes of control or changes in management.

          Affiliates of Ares Management LLC and Teachers’ Private Capital, a division of Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, and certain of our directors and members of our management will indirectly beneficially own substantially all of the outstanding equity of our Parent and, as a result, will have the indirect power to elect our directors, to appoint members of management, and to approve all actions requiring the approval of the holders of our common stock, including adopting amendments to our certificate of incorporation and approving mergers, acquisitions, or sales of all or substantially all of our assets. The interests of our ultimate controlling stockholders might conflict with the interests of other stockholders or the holders of our debt. Our ultimate controlling stockholders also may have an interest in pursuing acquisitions, divestitures, financings or other transactions that, in their judgment, could enhance their equity investment, even though such transactions might involve risks to the holders of our debt.

Risks Related to Our Substantial Indebtedness

Our substantial debt could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition and otherwise adversely impact our operating income and growth prospects.

          As of December 31, 2007, our total consolidated long-term debt (including current portion) was approximately $1,087.0 million, and we had an additional $53.5 million available for borrowing on a collateralized basis under our $60.0 million senior revolving credit facility after giving effect to the use of $6.5 million of the revolving credit facility to secure letters of credit.

          All of the debt under our senior credit facility bears interest at variable rates. We are subject to additional interest expense if these rates increase significantly, which could also reduce our ability to borrow additional funds.

          Our substantial debt could have material consequences on our financial condition. For example, it could:

	•		make it more difficult for us to satisfy our obligations with respect to the New Senior Notes and the New Senior Subordinated Notes;
	•		increase our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions;
	•		require us to use all or a large portion of our cash flow from operations to pay principal and interest on our debt, thereby reducing the availability of our cash flow to fund working capital, research and development efforts, capital expenditures, and other business activities;
	•		increase our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions;
	•		limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the industry in which we operate;
	•		restrict us from making strategic acquisitions or exploiting business opportunities;
	•		place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors that have less debt; and
	•		limit our ability to borrow additional funds, dispose of assets, or pay cash dividends.

For additional information regarding the interest rates and maturity dates of our existing debt, see Item 7, ”Management Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources.”

Despite our current significant level of debt, we may still be able to incur additional debt, which could increase the risks described above, adversely affect our financial health, or prevent us from fulfilling our obligations under the New Senior Notes and the New Senior Subordinated Notes.

          We and our subsidiaries may be able to incur additional debt in the future, including collateralized debt. Although the New Senior Credit Facility and the indentures governing the New Senior Notes and the New Senior Subordinated Notes contain restrictions on the incurrence of additional debt, these restrictions are subject to a number of qualifications and exceptions. If additional debt is added to our current level of debt, the risks described above would increase.

We require a significant amount of cash to service our debt. Our ability to generate cash depends on many factors beyond our control and, as a result, we may not be able to make payments on our debt obligations.

          We may be unable to generate sufficient cash flow from operations, to realize anticipated cost savings and operating improvements on schedule or at all, or to obtain future borrowings under our credit facilities or otherwise in an amount sufficient to enable us to pay our debt or to fund our other liquidity needs. In addition, because we conduct our operations through our operating subsidiaries, we depend on those entities for dividends and other payments to generate the funds necessary to meet our financial obligations, including payments on our debt. Under certain circumstances, legal and contractual restrictions, as well as the financial condition and operating requirements of our subsidiaries, may limit our ability to obtain cash from our subsidiaries. If we do not have sufficient liquidity, we may need to refinance or restructure all or a portion of our debt on or before maturity, sell assets, or borrow more money. We may not be able to do so on terms satisfactory to us or at all.

          If we are unable to meet our obligations with respect to our debt, we could be forced to restructure or refinance our debt, seek equity financing, or sell assets. If we are unable to restructure, refinance, or sell assets in a timely manner or on terms satisfactory to us, the trading price of the New Senior Notes and the New Senior Subordinated Notes could decline and we may default under our

obligations. As of December 31, 2007 substantially all of our debt was subject to acceleration clauses. A default on any of our debt obligations could trigger these acceleration clauses and cause those and our other obligations to become immediately due and payable. Upon an acceleration of any of our debt, we may not be able to make payments under our debt.

We may not have the ability to raise the funds necessary to finance the change of control offer required by the indentures, which could cause us to default on our debt obligations, including the New Senior Notes and the New Senior Subordinated Notes.

          Upon certain “change of control” events, as that term is defined in the indentures governing the New Senior Notes and the New Senior Subordinated Notes, we will be required to make an offer to repurchase all or any part of each holder’s notes at a price equal to 101% of the principal thereof, plus accrued interest to the date of repurchase. Because we do not have access to the cash flow of our subsidiaries, we will likely not have sufficient funds available at the time of any change of control event to repurchase all tendered notes pursuant to this requirement. Our failure to offer to repurchase notes or to repurchase notes tendered following a change of control would result in a default under the indentures. Accordingly, prior to repurchasing the notes upon a change of control event, we must refinance all of our outstanding indebtedness. We may be unable to refinance all of our outstanding indebtedness on terms acceptable to us or at all. If we were unable to refinance all such indebtedness, we would remain effectively prohibited from offering to repurchase the notes.

Restrictions in the agreements governing our existing indebtedness may prevent us from taking actions that we believe would be in the best interest of our business.

          The agreements governing our existing indebtedness contain customary restrictions on us or our subsidiaries, including covenants that restrict us or our subsidiaries, as the case may be, from:

	•		incurring additional indebtedness and issuing preferred stock;
	•		granting liens on our assets;
	•		making investments;
	•		consolidating or merging with, or acquiring, another business;
	•		selling or otherwise disposing our assets;
	•		paying dividends and making other distributions to GNC Parent LLC or GNC Corporation; and
	•		entering into transactions with our affiliates.

          Our ability to comply with these covenants and other provisions of the New Senior Credit Facility and the indentures governing the New Senior Notes and the New Senior Subordinated Notes may be affected by changes in our operating and financial performance, changes in general business and economic conditions, adverse regulatory developments, or other events beyond our control. The breach of any of these covenants could result in a default under our debt, which could cause those and other obligations to become immediately due and payable. If any of our debt is accelerated, we may not be able to repay it.

          The senior credit facility also requires that we meet specified financial ratios, including, but not limited to, maximum total leverage ratios. These restrictions may prevent us from taking actions that we believe would be in the best interest of our business and may make it difficult for us to successfully execute our business strategy or effectively compete with companies that are not similarly restricted.

As of December 31, 2007, our company-owned and franchised stores in the United States and Canada (excluding store-within-a-store locations) and our other international franchised stores consisted of:

          In our Manufacturing/Wholesale segment, we lease facilities for manufacturing, packaging, warehousing, and distribution operations. We manufacture a majority of our proprietary products at an approximately 300,000 square-foot facility in Greenville, South Carolina. We also lease an approximately 630,000 square-foot complex located in Anderson, South Carolina, for packaging, materials receipt, lab testing, warehousing, and distribution. Both the Greenville and Anderson facilities are leased on a long-term basis pursuant to “fee-in-lieu-of-taxes” arrangements with the counties in which the facilities are located, but we retain the right to purchase each of the facilities at any time during the lease for $1.00, subject to a loss of tax benefits. We lease a 210,000 square-foot distribution center in Leetsdale, Pennsylvania and a 112,000 square-foot distribution center in Phoenix, Arizona. We also lease space at a distribution center in Canada.

          We lease four small regional sales offices in Clearwater, Florida; Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Tustin, California; and Mississauga, Ontario. None of the regional sales offices is larger than 5,000 square feet. Our 253,000 square-foot corporate headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is owned by Gustine Sixth Avenue Associates, Ltd., a Pennsylvania limited partnership, of which General Nutrition Incorporated, one of our subsidiaries, is a limited partner entitled to share in 75% of the partnership’s profits or losses. The partnership’s ownership of the land and buildings, and the partnership’s interest in the ground lease to General Nutrition Incorporated, are all encumbered by a mortgage in the original principal amount of $17.9 million, with an outstanding balance of $9.8 million as of December 31, 2007. This partnership is included in our consolidated financial statements.

the deaths of several individuals. In early 2003, we instructed all of our locations to stop selling products containing ephedra that were manufactured by GNC or one of its affiliates. Subsequently, we instructed all of our locations to stop selling any products containing ephedra by June 30, 2003. In April 2004, the FDA banned the sale of products containing ephedra. All claims to date have been tendered to the third-party manufacturer or to our insurer, and we have incurred no expense to date with respect to litigation involving ephedra products. Furthermore, we are entitled to indemnification by Numico for certain losses arising from claims related to products containing ephedra sold prior to December 5, 2003. All of the pending cases relate to products sold prior to such time and, accordingly, we are entitled to indemnification from Numico for all of the pending cases.

           Pro-Hormone/Androstenedione Cases. We are currently defending against five lawsuits (the “Andro Actions”) relating to the sale by GNC of certain nutritional products alleged to contain the ingredients commonly known as Androstenedione, Androstenediol, Norandrostenedione, and Norandrostenediol (collectively, “Andro Products”). These five lawsuits were filed in California, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

          In each of the five cases, plaintiffs have sought, or are seeking, to certify a class and obtain damages on behalf of the class representatives and all those similarly-situated who purchased certain nutritional supplements from the Company alleged to contain one or more Andro Products.

          On April 17 and 18, 2006, we filed pleadings seeking to remove each of the Andro Actions to the respective federal district courts for the districts in which the respective Andro Actions are pending. At the same time, we filed motions seeking to transfer each of the Andro Actions to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York based on “related to” bankruptcy jurisdiction, as one of the manufacturers supplying us with Andro Products, and to whom we sought indemnity, MuscleTech Research and Development, Inc. (“MuscleTech”), filed bankruptcy. We were successful in removing the New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida Andro Actions to federal court and transferring these actions to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York based on bankruptcy jurisdiction. The California case was not removed and remains pending in state court.

          Following the conclusion of the MuscleTech Bankruptcy case, plaintiffs, in September 2007, filed a stipulation dismissing all claims related to the sale of MuscleTech products in the four cases currently pending in the Southern District of New York (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida). Additionally, plaintiffs have filed motions with the Court to remand these actions to their respective state courts, asserting that the federal court is divested of jurisdiction because the MuscleTech bankruptcy action is no longer pending. The motions to remand remain pending before the District Court. A more detailed description, listed by original state court proceeding and current style, follows:

           • Harry Rodriguez v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc. (previously pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, New York, Index No. 02/126277 and currently styled Harry Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-02987-JSR, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York). Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on or about July 25, 2002. The Second Amended Complaint, filed thereafter on or about December 6, 2002, alleged claims for unjust enrichment, violation of General Business Law Section 349 (misleading and deceptive trade practices), and violation of General Business Law Section 350 (false advertising). On July 2, 2003, the court granted part of the GNC motion to dismiss and dismissed the unjust enrichment cause of action. Still pending are plaintiffs’ claims of false advertising and misleading and deceptive trade practices. . On January 4, 2006, the court conducted a hearing on the GNC motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, both of which remain pending.

           • Everett Abrams v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc. (previously pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, New Jersey, Docket No. L-3789-02 and currently styled Everett Abrams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-07881-JSR, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York). Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on or about July 25, 2002. The Second Amended Complaint, filed

thereafter on or about December 20, 2002, alleged claims for false and deceptive marketing and omissions and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. On November 18, 2003, the court signed an order dismissing plaintiff’s claims for affirmative misrepresentation and sponsorship with prejudice. The claim for knowing omissions remains pending.

           • Shawn Brown, Ozan Cirak, Thomas Hannon, and Luke Smith v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc . (previously pending in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida, Index. No. CA-02-14221AB and currently styled Shawn Brown, Ozan Cirak, Thomas Hannon and Luke Smith, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-06356-UA, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York). Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on or about July 25, 2002. The Second Amended Complaint, filed thereafter on or about November 27, 2002, alleged claims for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and violation of Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act. These claims remain pending.

           • Andrew Toth v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., et al . (previously pending in the Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County, Philadelphia, Class Action No. 02-703886 and currently styled Andrew Toth and Richard Zatta, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bodyonics, LTD, d/b/a Pinnacle and General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-02721-JSR, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York). Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on or about July 25, 2002. The Amended Complaint, filed thereafter on or about April 8, 2003, alleged claims for violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and unjust enrichment. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and that order has been affirmed on appeal. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a petition in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asking that the court consider an appeal of the order denying class certification. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the petition after the case against GNC was removed as described above. The claims for violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and unjust enrichment remain pending.

           • Santiago Guzman , individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc. (pending on the California Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding No. 4363, Los Angeles County Superior Court). Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on or about February 17, 2004. The Second Amended Complaint, filed on or about November 27, 2006, alleged claims for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation of the Unfair Competition Act, and unjust enrichment. These claims remain pending.

          On January 25, 2008, a mediation was held for the Andro Actions and no resolution was reached. Based upon the information available to us at the present time, we believe that these matters will not have a material adverse effect upon our business or financial condition. As any liabilities that may arise from these cases are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time, no liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements.

           Class Action Settlement. Five class action lawsuits were filed against us in the state courts of Alabama, California, Illinois, and Texas with respect to claims that the labeling, packaging, and advertising with respect to a third-party product sold by us were misleading and deceptive. We denied any wrongdoing and are pursuing indemnification claims against the manufacturer. As a result of mediation, the parties agreed to a national settlement of the lawsuits, which has been approved by the court. Notice to the class has been published in mass advertising media publications. In addition, notice has been mailed to approximately 2.4 million GNC Gold Card members. Each person who purchased the third-party product and who is part of the class and who presented a cash register receipt or original product packaging will receive a cash reimbursement equal to the retail price paid, net of sales tax. Class members who purchased the product, but who do not have a cash register receipt or original product packaging, were given an opportunity to submit a signed affidavit that would then entitle them to receive one or more coupons. The deadline for submission of register receipts, original product packaging, or signed affidavits, was January 5, 2007. The number of coupons will be based on the total amount of purchases of the product subject to a maximum of five coupons per purchaser. Each coupon will have a

cash value of $10.00 valid toward any purchase of $25.00 or more at a GNC store. The coupons will not be redeemable by any GNC Gold Card member during Gold Card Week and will not be redeemable for products subject to any other price discount. The coupons are to be redeemed at point of sale and are not mail-in rebates. They will be redeemable for a 90-day period from the date of issuance. We also agreed to donate 100,000 coupons to the United Way. In addition to the cash reimbursements and coupons, as part of the settlement we paid legal fees of approximately $1.0 million and incurred advertising and postage costs of approximately $0.4 million in 2006. Additionally, as of June 30, 2007, an accrual of $0.3 million existed for additional advertising and postage costs related to the notification letters. The deadline for class members to opt out of the settlement class or object to the terms of the settlement was July 6, 2006. A final fairness hearing took place on January 27, 2007. As of February 29, 2008, there had been 651 claims forms submitted. Due to the uncertainty that exists as to the extent of future sales to the purchasers, the coupons are an incentive for the purchasers to buy products or services from us (at a reduced gross margin). Accordingly, the Company will recognize the settlement by reducing revenue in future periods when the purchasers utilize the coupons.

           Franklin Publications. On October 26, 2005, General Nutrition Corporation was sued in the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County, Ohio by Franklin Publications, Inc. The case was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. At the end of February, 2008, the case was settled. The lawsuit was based upon the GNC subsidiary’s termination, effective as of December 31, 2005, of two contracts for the publication of two monthly magazines mailed to certain GNC customers. Franklin was seeking a declaratory judgment as to its rights and obligations under the contracts and monetary damages for the GNC subsidiary’s alleged breach of the contracts. Franklin also alleged that the GNC subsidiary had interfered with Franklin’s business relationships with the advertisers in the publications, who were primarily GNC vendors, and had been unjustly enriched. We believe that the settlement will not have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition.

           Wage and Hour Claim. On August 11, 2006, the Company and General Nutrition Corporation, one of the Company’s wholly owned subsidiaries, were sued in federal district court for the District of Kansas by Michelle L. Most and Mark A. Kelso, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The lawsuit purports to certify a nationwide class of GNC store managers and assistant managers and alleges that GNC failed to pay time and a half for working more than 40 hours per week. Plaintiffs contend that the Company and General Nutrition Corporation improperly applied fluctuating work week calculations and procedures for docking pay for working less than 40 hours per week under a fluctuating work week. In May 2007, the parties entered into a settlement of the claims, which is subject to court approval. On or about July 3, 2007, the Company sent a notice to all potential claimants, who may then elect to opt in to the settlement. While the actual settlement amount will be based on the number of claimants who actually opt in to participate in the settlement, if approved by the court, the settlement contemplates a maximum total payment by the Company of $1.9 million if all potential claimants opt in. Based on the number of actual opt-ins, the total amount paid in the third quarter of 2007 to the class is approximately $0.1 million. In addition, the Company paid the plaintiffs’ counsel an agreed amount of $0.7 million for attorneys’ fees following approval by the court of the settlement. On July 23, 2007, the court approved the settlement of claims as fair, reasonable, and adequate and entered its Order of Approval. The total amount paid to the class approximated $0.1 million. Final Judgment was entered by the Court on December 18, 2007 disposing of the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs.

           California Wage and Break Claim . On April 24, 2007, Kristin Casarez and Tyler Goodell filed a lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange. We removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on their own behalf, on behalf of a class of all current and former non-exempt employees of GNC throughout the State of California employed on or after August 24, 2004, and as private attorney general on behalf of the general public. Plaintiffs allege that they and members of the putative class were not provided all of the rest periods and meal periods to which they were entitled under California law, and further allege that GNC failed to pay them split shift and overtime compensation to which they were entitled under California law. We intend to vigorously oppose class certification. Based on the information

available to us at the present time, we believe that this matter will not have a material adverse effect upon our business or financial condition.