Consolidated Bostick 13APR2015 Plaintiff Motions

Case 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-SH Document 125-1 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:3628
1
2
3
4
5
Philip D. Dracht (SBN 219044)

pdracht@fabianlaw.com
Scott M. Petersen (pro hac vice)
spetersen@fabianlaw.com
Jason W. Hardin (pro hac vice)
jhardin@fabianlaw.com
Fabian & Clendenin
215 South State Street, Suite 1200
Salt Lake City, UT 84151-0210
Telephone: (801) 531-8900
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Thomas G. Foley, Jr., SBN 65812

tfoley@foleybezek.com
Justin P, Karczag, SBN 223764
jkarczag@foleybezek.com
Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP
15 West Carrillo Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 962-9495
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dana Bostick,
Anita Vasko, Judi Trotter, Beverly
Molnar, and Chester Cote
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15 DANA BOSTICK, et al.,

16
PLAINTIFF,
17
18 vs.
19 HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL
20 OF AMERICA, INC., a Nevada
Corporation, HERBALIFE
21 INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Nevada
22 Corporation, HERBALIFE, LTD a
Cayman Island Corporation,
23
24
Case No.: 2:13-cv-02488-BRO (RZx)

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
INCREASE AWARDS TO
BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY
CLAIMANTS
Hon. Beverly Reid OConnell
Date: May 11, 2015
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Place: Courtroom 14-Spring St. Floor
DEFENDANTS.
25
Complaint filed: April 8, 2013
26
27
28
Case No. 2:13cv02488BRO (RZx)
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOT. TO INCREASE PAYMENTS TO BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY

CLAIMANTS

I.
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Section 4.4.5 of the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement
Agreement), Plaintiffs ask the Court to increase the limit on Pro Rata Awards for
business opportunity claimants from 50% of their total purchases to 75% of their
total purchases. This change, which was contemplated in the Settlement
Agreement, will benefit all class members receiving such awards and will not
diminish the cash benefits received by any other class member. Defendants do not
oppose the change.
II.
10
BACKGROUND
On October 31, 2014, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into the Settlement
11
Agreement. The Settlement Agreement provides (1) economic relief for the
12
Settlement Class through cash awards and refunds for returned product and (2) 13
13
specific agreed to corporate reforms. Under the terms of the Settlement
14
Agreement, Class Members who qualify and submit claims for a cash award are
15
referred to as Business Opportunity Claimants and are entitled to either a Pro
16
Rata or a Flat Rate cash award.
17
Those entitled to a Pro Rata award are Business Opportunity Claimants who
18
purchased at least $750 of Qualified (Pro Rata Claimant). The Settlement
19
Agreement currently provides that Pro Rata Claimants receive a Pro Rata award
20
that is equal to the lesser of (1) 100% of their estimated total loss from the sale of
21
Qualified Products or (2) 50% of the aggregate price they paid for the
22
Qualified Products during the class period. Claimants who do not meet the $750
23
Pro Rata award threshold but who otherwise qualify as a Business Opportunity
24
Claimant are entitled to a $20 Flat Rate award (Flat Rate Claimants).
25
Section 4.4.5(a) of the Settlement Agreement provides that [i]f the
26
aggregate payment for Pro Rata Awards is less than 75% of the Net Settlement
27
Fund less the aggregate Flat Rate Awards . . . either party may move the Court to
28

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

increase payment to Business Opportunity Claimants receiving a Pro Rata Award
up to the lesser of (i) 75% of the price paid by that claimant for the claimants
aggregate Qualified Products; or (ii) the total Net Settlement Fund.
On December 2, 2014, this Court entered an order granting preliminary
approval of the Settlement Agreement and directed that notice of the settlement be
disseminated to the Class (the Preliminary Approval Order).1 Pursuant to the
Preliminary Approval Order, KCC, LLC, the Court-appointed Claims
Administrator, mailed and emailed direct notices to 1,533,339 potential class
members.2 The deadline for Class Members to submit a claim form was February
10
3, 2015 (Claims Deadline).3 Despite this deadline, through negotiations with
11
Defendants, Plaintiffs have secured continued acceptance of otherwise properly
12
completed claim forms through the date of filing this motion, with all parties
13
reserving their rights pending review of such claims. The deadline for Class
14
Members to object to the Settlement Agreement was March 28, 2015 (Objection
15
Deadline).4
16
To date, approximately 7,238 Class Members have submitted Claim Forms.
17
The most recent report from the claims administrator revealed that as of April 6,
18
2015 the aggregate amount of Pro Rata and Flat Rate awards due under the
19
Settlement Agreement is $5,738,761.49. Of this amount, $76,520.00 is
20
attributable to Flat Rate awards and $5,662,241.49 to Pro Rata awards.
21
Section 4.1 of the Settlement Agreement defines the Net Settlement Fund as
22
the $15,000,000 Settlement Fund less the costs of notice to the class and
23
administration of the settlement (approximately $600,000), attorney fees
24
25
26
27
28
Dkt. No. 105.

Dkt. No. 105 19.
3
Dkt. No. 105 44.
4
Id.

1
2

($5,250,000), and litigation costs ($210,000).5 That amount totals $8,940,000.
Thus, the aggregate payment for Pro Rata awards (less the aggregate Flat Rate
awards) is approximately 63% of the Net Settlement Fund.
Plaintiffs file this motion to seek approval of the Court to increase the
percentage payout to Business Opportunity Claimants from 50% to 75% pursuant
to Section 4.4.5 of the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs have been advised that
Defendants do not to object to Plaintiffs motion. Moreover, none of the Class
Members have objected to Section 4.4.5(a) of the Settlement Agreement or the
language providing for the increase in payments to claimants that Plaintiffs are
10
now seeking.
11
III.
12
ARGUMENT
After a class action settlement agreement has been preliminarily approved,
13
the court is responsible for ensuring that the terms of the settlement agreement are
14
followed.6
15
Here, Section 4.4.5(a) of the Settlement Agreement provides for a
16
conditional increase in the amount a Business Opportunity Claimant may receive
17
as a Pro Rata award. If, after the claims have been submitted, the aggregate
18
payment to Pro Rata Claimants is less than 75% of the Net Settlement, then the
19
Pro Rata award can be increased from 50% to 75% of the total price paid by the
20
Pro Rata Claimant for his or her Qualified Products.
21
As of April 6, 2015, the aggregate settlement payments to the Pro Rata
22
Claimants total 63% of the currently estimated Net Settlement Fund. As this
23
amount is well below the 75% threshold contemplated by Section 4.4.5(a) of the
24
25
26
27
28
Section 4.1 also subtracts from the Settlement Fund any product return payments that, in
the aggregate, exceed the $2,500,000 Product Return Fund. However, to date, such
aggregate product return payments do not exceed $1,000,000, and therefore do not exceed
the Product Return Fund.
6
See Sandpiper Vill. Condo. Ass'n., Inc. v. Louisiana-Pac. Corp., 428 F.3d 831, 846 (9th Cir.
2005); Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 758 (9th Cir. 1989) (The courts power to approve or
reject settlements does not permit it to modify the terms of a negotiated settlement.).

3
5

Settlement Agreement, an increase of the payment percentage to Pro Rata
Claimants is appropriate.
While Plaintiffs continue to advocate for acceptance of late claims, it is
highly unlikely that late claims, accepted after the date of this Motion, will
increase the aggregate Pro Rata amount to greater than 75% of the total Net
Settlement Funds less the Flat Rate awards. In addition, no objector has presented
an objection that would prevent this Court from allowing this requested increase.
Based on current figures, Plaintiffs estimate that an increase of the
aggregate sales percentage to 75% will result in an additional payout to the Pro
10
Rata Claimants of $1,556,298.25 from the Settlement Fund. This is money that,
11
based on the Settlement Agreement, would otherwise go to cy pres. Increasing
12
payments to claimants is clearly preferable to paying those funds to cy pres.
13
IV.
14
CONCLUSION
Based on the plain language of the Settlement Agreement and the current
15
accounting of all claims made, the Court should enforce the terms of the
16
Settlement Agreement and allow Pro Rata claims to be paid out at the lesser of
17
100% of the estimated total loss from Qualified Product sales or [75%] of the
18
price paid by that claimant for the claimants aggregate Qualified Products.7
19
DATED: April 13, 2015
FABIAN & CLENDENIN, P.C.
20
FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS LLP
21
/s/ Scott M. Petersen

Phillip D. Dracht
Scott M. Petersen
Jason W. Hardin
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Settlement Agreement, Sec. 4.4.5.

Thomas G. Foley, Jr.

Robert A. Curtis
Justin P. Karczag
Attorneys for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 13th day of April, 2015, the foregoing has been
2
3
served via the CM/ECF system on counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants at the
following addresses:
A Howard Matz ahm@birdmarella.com, dh@birdmarella.com
Aaron Lee Arndt aarndt@foleybezek.com
David L Zifkin dzifkin@bsfllp.com, dmcknight@bsfllp.com,
ecolle@BSFLLP.com, Lcajigas@bsfllp.com, tsparks@bsfllp.com
Gopi K Panchapakesan gkp@birdmarella.com, kmm@birdmarella.com,
mlw@birdmarella.com
Jason W Hardin jhardin@fabianlaw.com
Jonathan Sherman jsherman@bsfllp.com
Jonathan David Schiller jschiller@bsfllp.com
Joseph F Kroetsch jkroetsch@bsfllp.com
Justin P Karczag jkarczag@foleybezek.com, cwalker@foleybezek.com,
ehuffman@foleybezek.com
Kevin D Gamarnik kgamarnik@foleybezek.com
Mark T Drooks mtd@birdmarella.com, lak@birdmarella.com
Mitchell A Kamin mak@birdmarella.com, km@birdmarella.com,
krw@birdmarella.com, lak@birdmarella.com
Philip D Dracht pdracht@fabianlaw.com, aclark@fabianlaw.com,
smcnett@fabianlaw.com
Robert Allen Curtis rcurtis@foleybezek.com,
cconnors@foleybezek.com, jkassity@foleybezek.com
Scott M Petersen spetersen@fabianlaw.com, smcnett@fabianlaw.com
Thomas Foley tfoley@foleybezek.com, aarndt@foleybezek.com,
cconnors@foleybezek.com
William S Ohlemeyer wohlemeyer@bsfllp.com
Andrea L Petray apetray@marksfinch.com, nhorn@marksfinch.com
James C Sturdevant jsturdevant@sturdevantlaw.com,
bnuss@sturdevantlaw.com, ydrevon@sturdevantlaw.com
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
April 13, 2015

483009966115, v. 1
28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Fabian & Clendenin
Telephone: (801) 531-8900
Telephone: (805) 962-9495
13
14
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
15
16
17
18
DANA BOSTICK, a California

citizen, et al.,
19
20
Case No.: 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-RZ

DECLARATION OF PHILIP D.
DRACHT
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
21
22
23
24
25
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL
OF AMERICA, INC., a Nevada
Corporation, et al.,
Hearing Date: May 11, 2015

Time: 1:30 p.m.
Courtroom: 14
DEFENDANTS.
26
27
28
Case No. 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-RZ
DECLARATION OF PHILIP D. DRACHT
I, Philip D. Dracht, hereby declare as follows:
1.
I am a member in good standing of the bar of this Court, an active
3 member of the State Bar of California and the State Bar of Utah and one of the
4 attorneys of record for the Plaintiffs and Class Counsel in the above-captioned
5 action.
6
2.
I respectfully submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion
7 for Final Approval of the Settlement against Defendants Herbalife, LTD, Herbalife
8 International of America, Inc., and Herbalife International, Inc. (Herbalife).
9
3.
Following the filing of the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of
10 Settlement and the Courts granting preliminary approval, there were numerous
11 stories, blogs, and other online descriptions of the settlement, including stories
12 published in
13
14
15
16
17
a. LaOpinin: http://www.laopinion.com/ganancias-perdidaherbalife-ponzi-piramide (Spanish)

b. Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/05/herbalifelawsuit-idUSL4N0SR00520141105
c. Bloomberg Business:
18
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-01/herbalife-to-
19
pay-15-million-to-end-pyramid-scheme-suit
20
d. Slate:
21
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/11/03/herbalife_pyra
22
mid_scheme_lawsuit_15_million_settlement_in_class_action.html
23
e. Yahoo! News https://news.yahoo.com/herbalife-wins-court-
24
approval-class-action-settlement-230953489--sector.html
25
f. National Law Journal:
26
http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202678301481/Herbalife-
27
to-Settle-Case-Claiming-Pyramid-
28
Scheme?slreturn=20150312142841
1
g. Law360: http://www.law360.com/articles/592656/herbalife-pays-
15m-to-end-pyramid-scheme-class-action
h. DailyMail.com: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
2816636/Herbalife-settle-class-action-lawsuit-alleged-pyramid-
scheme-15M-denies-liability.html
i. mynewsla.com http://mynewsla.com/business/2014/12/05/15-
7
8
million-herbalife-settlement-alleged-pyramid-scheme-finalized/
4.
Notably, days after the Settlement was announced, the NYPost
9 predicted that
10
some critics, including Hispanic activists, hope to stop the $15
11
million settlement reached Friday in a class-action lawsuit by several
12
distributors.
We plan to object to the settlement because it wont begin to
13
14
pay for the true damages that Herbalife has caused this class, said
15
Brent Wilkes, executive director of the League of United Latin
16
American Citizens.
17
http://nypost.com/2014/11/02/herbalife-plot-thickens-with-third-quarter-
18
report/
19
5.
Prior to any settlement and before the Court ruled on Herbalifes
20 Motion to Dismiss, in July of 2013, I reached out to Mr. Wilkes, the national
21 executive director of the Washington-based League of United Latin American
22 Citizens, or LULAC to introduce myself as counsel for Dana Bostick because Mr.
23 Wilkes had publically criticized Herbalife. See
24 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/19/business/la-fi-herbalife-latino-20130719. I
25 left a message with Mr. Wilkes office to contact me because I thought that Mr.
26 Wilkes might have information that would assist the class in the prosecution of this
27 action. Neither Mr. Wilkes nor anyone from his office returned my phone call. The
28 New York Times later revealed that LULAC had accepted a $10,000 contribution
2
1 from the Pershing Square hedge fund that has taken a purported $1,000,000,000.00
2 short position against Herbalifes stock in 2013.
3 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/business/staking-1-billion-that-herbalife-will4 fail-then-ackman-lobbying-to-bring-it-down.html
5
6.
In September 2014 I was contacted by Anthony Fata, an attorney in
6 Chicago who told me that he was contacted by a group of former Herbalife

7 distributors associated with a Hispanic advocacy group who wanted to discuss
8 bringing a class action against Herbalife. I never heard anything further from that
9 lawyer.
10
7.
Days before the settlement was announced, an attorney by the name of
11 Jay Reyes from Riverside Law Group from the greater Chicago area contacted me
12 by telephone. He indicated that he was in contact with the Chicago area LULAC
13 group and that, according to news of a potential settlement related to filings with the
14 Court, they were concerned that they would get a check for $15 bucks when they
15 had claimed to have damages that ranged from $1500 to $30,000. I explained that
16 our door was always open and that we were happy to talk with them. I never heard
17 anything further from that lawyer or from any representative of the Chicago area
18 LULAC.
19
8.
The New York Post later reported that Julie Contreras, of the Lake
20 County (Chicago) LULAC chapter, invited William Ackman, the founder of the
21 Pershing Square hedge fund, to speak at an anti-Herbalife event in Chicago.
22 http://nypost.com/2015/01/13/ackman-leads-hispanics-in-rally-against-herbalife/.
23 An attendee reported that Sally Greenberg of the National Consumers League, the
24 entity that filed an amicus brief in opposition to the Settlement, Dkt No. 117, also
25 spoke at the event. http://www.trustincapitalblog.com/blog-1/2015/1/13/a-different26 kind-of-herbalife-extravaganza. Class Counsel was not invited to attend or speak at
27 that event.
28
3
1
2
Class Notice and Administration

9.
The notice and FAQspublished in English and Spanishinformed
3 Class Members that they could ask for free help and provided phone numbers for
4 both English and Spanish speaking Class Members to call Class Counsel. Class
5 members were instructed to leave their name and phone number and a brief
6 description of their question. Both I and Class Counsel Scott Petersen, who speaks
7 fluent Spanish, oversaw the responses to these inquiries. We responded to over 300
8 phone calls. While most questions were not legal questions, when Claimants had
9 legal questions, such as what to do if the Class Member was deceased, either I or
10 Scott Petersen would provide answers to those questions. It was reported to me by
11 staff members supervised by myself and Scott Peterson who were responding to
12 phone calls from Spanish-speaking Class Members that a handful of Spanish13 speaking claimants had concerns about getting into trouble for filing a claim. We
14 informed those concerned claimants that there would be no adverse action taken
15 against them for participating in the settlement.
16
10.
Following the claims period cutoff, we received phone calls and
17 emails from Class Members saying that they had only recently received their
18 postcard notice from KCC. KCC informed me that the reason for late postcard
19 notices was that for certain Class Members, both their emails addresses and mailing
20 addresses had changed since they last provided Herbalife with contact information.
21 Because KCC would receive either an email bounce back or a returned postcard
22 notice when that happened, KCC would attempt to locate a more recent address and
23 re-mail the postcard. I immediately reached out to KCC and to Herbalife and
24 Herbalife agreed that those Claimants who stated that they had not received Notice
25 prior to the deadline for filing a claim could file a claim, which we facilitated by
26 providing those individuals with claim forms. These claims will be evaluated after
27 all late claims are received.
28 / / /
4
11.
Following the claims period cutoff and continuing to the present,
2 Class Counsel continues to respond to inquiries from English and Spanish-speaking

3 Claimants and has worked with KCC to provide those late Claimants with claim
4 forms to fill out and submit. The parties have agreed to continue operation of the
5 settlement website until at least April 30, 2015 to allow late Claimants to make
6 claims online to expedite the process. The purpose of this was to expedite the
7 claims process. These claims will be evaluated after all late claims are received.
8
12.
In addition to the Brooks Objectors, Class Counsel has received only
9 three objections, from: Kandace Armstrong, Wymon Jong, and Jeff Lokken. Copies
10 of those objections are attached hereto collectively as Exhibit A.
11
13.
Upon receipt of the Armstrong and Jong objections on the basis that
12 they received a late claim form notice, consistent with our course of conduct for all
13 Class Members, I obtained a claim form from KCC and provided it to them. Both
14 Armstrong and Jong subsequently submitted a claim. Subject to Court approval,
15 both Armstrong and Jong have withdrawn their objections. Copies of the
16 withdrawal of their objection are attached hereto collectively as Exhibit B.
17
14.
Five of the Brooks Objectors, Calderon, Colon, Leon, Sanchez, and
18 Vallecillo, objected to the settlement on the basis that they did not receive timely
19 notice. Upon receipt of their objection, and consistent with our course of conduct
20 for all Class Members, I obtained claim forms for those individuals from KCC and
21 provided individualized claim forms to their counsel. A copy of the cover email
22 transmitting those claim forms is attached as Exhibit C. Those five objectors all
23 submitted claims, which I forwarded with Herbalifes consent to KCC for
24 processing. A copy of the cover email from Douglas Brooks to me transmitting
25 those completed claim forms is attached as Exhibit D.
26
15.
There are ten Brooks Objectors who claimed that I received the Class
27 Notice but I did not understand that I could file a claim and also object to the
28 Settlement: Elvia Acosta, Sabas Avila, Elizabeth Correa, Maria Cutzal, Juana
5
1 Estala, Jose G. Garcia, Rossina Martinez, Yader Pastran, Jose Tafoya and Olivia
2 Torres. I am informed and believe that to the best of all Class Counsels knowledge,
3 no other Class Members ever raised this issue with class counsel or the Settlement
4 Administrator. Class Counsel obtained Herbalifes agreement that these allegedly
5 confused individuals be allowed to file claims, although neither Class Counsel
6 nor Herbalife agrees that there was any reasonable basis for the Brooks Objectors
7 supposed confusion. A copy of the cover email to Objectors attorney Douglas
8 Brooks attaching their claim forms is attached as Exhibit E.
9
During the course of administering the settlement, and before the filing of
10
any objections, the parties agreed to the substantive terms of the Second
11
Amendment to Stipulation of Settlement. That amendment has been filed with the
12
Court.I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
13
America that the foregoing is true and correct.
14
Executed on April 13, 2015 at Santa Barbara, California:
15
16
17
18
19
/s/ Philip D. Dracht*

*/s/ Thomas G. Foley, Jr., attests that all other signatories listed, and on whose
behalf the filing is submitted, concur in the filings content and have authorized the
filing
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Case 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-SH Document 130-2 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 21 Page ID

#:3722
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A

#:3723
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 6

#:3724
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 6

#:3725
Exhibit A
Page 3 of 6

#:3726
Exhibit A
Page 4 of 6

#:3727
Exhibit A
Page 5 of 6

#:3728
Exhibit A
Page 6 of 6

#:3729
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B

#:3730
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 2
Mar 24 15 l2:bYp
Wyman Jong
954-734-9342
p.1

#:3731
United States District Court

Central District of CaLifornia
312 No. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA90012
March 23, 2015

RE: Written Objection
Case: Dana Bostick. eta!. v. Herbalife International of America, mc, et al.,
Case No: 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-RZ
[would like to withdraw the objection that I submitted to this settlement on the basis that I dId
not timely receive ray notice. Upon receipt of my objection arid explanation as to why I was
unable to submit a timely claim form, on March 23, 2015. counsel for the Plaintiffs arranged for
me 10 submit a claim form, which I dii
954-683-6408
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 2

#:3732
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C

#:3733
Philip D. Dracht
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Philip D. Dracht
Friday, March 27, 2015 2:40 PM
Douglas Brooks (dmbrooks@brooks-law.net); 'mckeon@cohenmckeon.com'
Scott M. Petersen; 'jhardin@fabianlaw.com'; tfoley@foleybezek.com;
rcurtis@foleybezek.com; Colleen Connors; Samantha McNett
Herbalife: Claim Forms
HIB_Claim Form_Miguel Calderon.pdf; HIB_Claim Form_Felipe Colon.pdf; HIB_Claim
Form_Valentina Leon.pdf; HIB_Claim Form_Gilberto Melchor.pdf; HIB_Claim Form_Martil
Palma.pdf
DougandHeather:
Wereceivedyourobjectionandthedeclarationsoftheobjectorsandwantedtoreachouttoyou.Fiveofyourobjectors
havecertifiedunderpenaltyofperjurythattheydidnotreceivenoticeoftheclassactionsettlement.
MiguelCalderon
FelipeColon
ValentinaLeon
GilbertoMelchorSanchez
MartilPalmaVallecillo
Ithasbeenourpracticepursuanttoparagraph43oftheOrderGrantingPreliminaryApproval,thatwhereClass
Membershavenotreceivednoticeorreceivednoticewithoutsufficienttimetofileaclaimbeforetheclaimdeadline,
thatwearepermittingsuchClassMemberstofileclaimsafterthedeadline.Herbalifehasnotopposedthis,provided
therewasagoodfaithexplanationforthelateness.Soattachedareclaimformsforeachofyourclientswhoclaimthat
theyneverreceivednotice.Ifyourclientswishtomakeaclaim,pleasehavethemdosobyApril10,2015sothatthe
settlementadministratorcanincludetheirclaimsinanyreportsubmittedtotheCourtinconjunctionwiththeMotion
forFinalApprovalofthesettlement.
Wearestillanalyzingtheotherobjectorswhoclaimedthattheyreceivednoticebutdidnotfilloutaclaimformbecause
theydidnotknowthattheycouldobjectandfilloutaclaim.Obviouslythisisasmallminorityasnootherobjectors
haveraisedthisissueanditseemstobelimitedtoyour10clients.Acriticalcomponentthoughiswhethertheobjectors
wererepresentedbycounselattheclaimsubmissiondeadline.
Wearewillingtodiscussthisfurtherwithyou.
Sincerely,
PhilipD.Dracht
Office(801)5318900
Direct(801)3232251
Fax(801)5311716
215SouthStateStreet,Suite1200
SaltLakeCity,UT841112323
www.fabianlaw.com
Exhibit C
1

#:3734
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D

#:3735
Philip D. Dracht
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Douglas M. Brooks <dmbrooks@brooks-law.net>

Friday, April 10, 2015 7:51 PM
Philip D. Dracht
mckeon@cohenmckeon.com; Scott M. Petersen; Jason W. Hardin;
tfoley@foleybezek.com; rcurtis@foleybezek.com; cconnors@foleybezek.com;
Samantha McNett
Emailing - IMG_0002.pdf
IMG_0002.pdf
Phil
I am attaching claim forms for Miguel Calderon, Felipe Colon, Valentina Leon, Gilberto Melchor Sanchez and
Martil Palma Vallecillo.
I received your email regarding the other objectors today and I shall respond in due course.
My clients are not requesting or expecting special treatment and their filing of these claims is not a waiver of
any of their objections. None of them were represented at the claim submission deadline.
Douglas M. Brooks
Attorney at Law
60 Thoreau Street, No. 219
Concord, MA 01742
(781) 424-6737
dmbrooks@brooks-law.net
Exhibit D
1

#:3736
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E

#:3737
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E

#:3738
Philip D. Dracht
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Philip D. Dracht
Friday, April 10, 2015 1:22 PM
Douglas Brooks (dmbrooks@brooks-law.net); 'mckeon@cohenmckeon.com'
Scott M. Petersen; 'jhardin@fabianlaw.com'; tfoley@foleybezek.com
Herbalife
HIB_Claim Form_Yader Pastran.pdf; HIB_Claim Form_Elizabeth Correa.pdf; HIB_Claim
Form_Elvia Acosta.pdf; HIB_Claim Form_Jose Garcia.pdf; HIB_Claim Form_Juana
Estala.pdf; HIB_Claim Form_Maria Cutza.pdf; HIB_Claim Form_Rossina Martinez.pdf;
HIB_Claim Form_Sabas Avila.pdf; HIB_POC_141210.pdf; HIB_POC_sp_141210.pdf
Doug:
Attached are claim forms for the objectors you represent who have claimed that they were
confused by the ability to file a claim and also object. As no other objectors have raised this
issue, it appears to be limited to the 10 objectors represented by you. Despite passage of the
applicable deadlines, we have obtained Herbalifes agreement that your clients be allowed to
file a claim.
The claim forms for the following objectors are attached:
Elvia Acosta
Sabas Avila
Elizabeth Correa
Maria Cutzal
Juana Estala
Jose G. Garcia
Rossina Martinez
Yader Pastran
Personalized forms for Jose Tafoyas and Olivia Torress are not attached because we were
unable to determine their Herbalife ID and did not want to confuse them with other similarly
named class members. Accordingly, two blank claims forms are attached (in both English and
Spanish) for Mr. Tafoya and Ms. Torres to complete and submit. In doing so, please ensure that
they include their Herbalife ID numbers in their application so that they are linked to the correct
purchase data.
You can scan all the completed forms (including the forms of those objectors who claim they
did not receive notice) and forward them to me to submit to KCC, the court-approved
settlement administrator. This will expedite the processing of their paper claims. If your clients
prefer, we have arranged for them to file their claims online through the claims website,
www.herbalifeclassaction.com, which will be available to file claims until April 30, 2015. The
link to file a claim is in the upper right hand menu. As Ive indicated, Mr. Tafoya and Ms.
1
Exhibit E
Page 1 of 2

#:3739
Torres will need their HIB claim numbers from their notice to file their claims online, which
should be on the claim notice that they received.
Please let me know if you have any questions. We are always willing to discuss these and other
issues with you.
PhilipD.Dracht
Office(801)5318900
Direct(801)3232251
Fax(801)5311716
215SouthStateStreet,Suite1200
SaltLakeCity,UT841112323
www.fabianlaw.com
Exhibit E
Page 2 of 2

#:3740
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F

#:3741
U.S.CourtofAppealsSummary12MonthPeriodEndingDecember31,2014
DC
1ST
2ND
3RD
4TH
5TH
6TH
7TH
8TH
1,092
1,413
4,988
3,962
4,727
7,765
4,605
2,917
2,968 11,311
Prisoner
86
201
947
1,025
1,735
2,274
1,414
1,000
984
Other
512
592
2,399
2,182
1,601
2,609
2,012
1,241
Criminal
66
463
781
459
1,145
2,433
899
533
Administrative
428
157
861
296
246
449
280
7.1
10.3
0.2
1.3
4.9
4.2
7.3
7.6
7.1
0.3
2.6
Total
A
p
p
e
a
l
s
F
i
l
e
d
Percent
Change
inTotal
Filings
Current
Year
OverLastYear
A
p
p
e
a
l
s
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
11TH
1,964
6,087
2,601
555
1,966
1,158
3,979
888
2,552
678
1,380
394
1,245
143
148
3,351
127
324
7.5
2.5
4.6
11.4
5.2
2.7
4.1
7.0
6.6
3.1
5.6
13.5
5.5
3,000 11,378
2,058
6,239
43
215
1,034
1,297
5,181
3,262
4,843
7,996
5,141
3,023
Consolidations
&CrossAppeals
168
66
366
100
177
1,000
264
189
Procedural
124
321
402
407
1,915
1,030
1,099
2,814
1,384
1,125
568
4,651
600
2,228
Total
464
824
2,900
2,132
3,567
4,182
3,493
1,709
2,308
6,406
1,415
3,796
Prisoner
42
123
498
532
1,241
950
1,026
521
754
2,157
365
1,280
Other
273
336
1,306
1,032
1,159
1,458
1,470
732
914
1,921
590
1,448
Criminal
47
283
529
395
1,020
1,591
758
376
556
1,016
353
914
Administrative
102
82
567
173
147
183
239
80
84
1,312
107
154
Percentby
ActiveJudges
79.3
70.5
70.6
78.5
87.7
80.1
67.0
77.9
86.7
70.1
70.6
80.8
1,503
1,469
3,522
2,809
2,224
4,638
3,249
1,812
1,500 14,200
1,171
3,511
TerminationontheMerits
138
420
524
427
698
807
448
422
295
936
ProceduralTerminations
On
The
Merits
PendingAppeals
Actions
per
Active
Judge
10TH
Over2010
Total
Overall
Caseload
Statistics
9TH
Written
Decisions
578
486
28
50
68
51
55
156
55
47
51
70
51
220
Total
35
123
201
147
231
225
161
134
181
154
101
356
Signed
15
36
196
102
41
22
48
48
44
13
84
22
Unsigned
20
84
35
191
202
113
86
46
72
17
320
Without
Comment
10
92
68
15
Includesonlyjudgesactiveduringtheentire12monthperiod.
PriortoDecember2011,casesdisposedofbyconsolidationandcrossappealswerecountedseparately.
FromDecember2011forward,theyarecountedasasubsetofproceduralandmeritterminationstoreflect
themannerinwhichtheappealwasdisposed.
Exhibit F
Page 1 of 2

#:3742
U.S.CourtofAppealsSummary12MonthPeriodEndingDecember31,2014
DC
NumberofJudgeships/
NumberofPanels
NumberofSitting
SeniorJudges
NumberofVacant
JudgeshipMonths
A
p
p
e
a
l
s
Actions
per
Panel
A
p
p
e
a
l
s
F
i
l
e
d
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
Other
Caseload
per
Judgeship
2ND
3RD
4TH
5TH
6TH
7TH
8TH
9TH
10TH
11TH
11/3.7 6/2.0 13/4.3 14/4.7 15/5.0 17/5.7 16/5.3 11/3.7 11/3.7 29/9.7 12/4.0 12/4.0
6
11
16
10
0.4
4.6
0.0
6.1
4.9
28.6
12.0
12.0
0.0
6.8
6.4
31.1
Total
298
707
1,151
849
945
1,370
863
796
809
1,170
491
1,522
Prisoner
23
101
219
220
347
401
265
273
268
269
139
492
AllOtherCivil
140
296
554
468
320
460
377
338
316
412
222
638
232
180
98
229
429
169
145
185
143
99
311
Criminal
18
Administrative
117
79
199
63
49
79
53
39
40
347
32
81
Total
282
649
1,196
699
969
1,411
964
824
818
1,177
515
1,560
Consolidations
&CrossAppeals
46
33
84
21
35
176
50
52
34
33
11
54
Procedural
110
204
442
221
220
497
260
307
155
481
150
557
412
669
457
713
738
655
466
629
663
354
949
On
The
Merits
Total
127
Prisoner
11
62
115
114
248
168
192
142
206
223
91
320
Other
74
168
301
221
232
257
276
200
249
199
148
362
Criminal
13
142
122
85
204
281
142
103
152
105
88
229
Administrative
28
41
131
37
29
32
45
22
23
136
27
39
410
735
813
602
445
818
609
494
409
1,469
293
878
13.7 12.1 10.5
7.1
5.2
8.9
9.0
7.0
6.1 12.4
8.4
7.2
PendingAppeals
Median
Time
1ST
MedianTimeFrom
FilingNoticeofAppeal
toDisposition
Applicationsfor
InterlocutoryAppeals
PetitionsforRehearing
11
26
41
38
80
66
29
68
35
96
50
41
70
See"ExplanationoftheJudicialCaseloadProfiles."
See"ExplanationofSelectedTerms."
PriortoDecember2011,casesdisposedofbyconsolidationandcrossappealswerecountedseparately.
FromDecember2011forward,theyarecountedasasubsetofproceduralandmeritterminationstoreflect
themannerinwhichtheappealwasdisposed.
Exhibit F
Page 2 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Kevin Gamarnik, SBN 273445
kgamarnik@foleybezek.com
Telephone: (805) 962-9495
Philip D. Dracht, SBN 219044
Fabian & Clendenin
Telephone: (801) 531-8900
Anita Vasko, Judi Trotter, Beverly Molnar, and Chester Cote
14
15
16
17

CASE NO. 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-RZx
DANA BOSTICK, et al.,
18
Plaintiffs,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vs.
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL OF
AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G.
FOLEY, JR. IN SUPPORT OF
JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT CLASS
Hearing Date:
Time:
Courtroom: 14
May 11, 2015

1:30 p.m.
1
2
Thomas G. Foley, Jr., states and declares as follows:

1.
I, Thomas G. Foley, Jr., am an attorney licensed to practice law in the
State of California and am co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class. I am a
founding partner of FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLC (FBBC). I make
this declaration upon my own personal knowledge, except those matters stated
upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. If
called upon to testify to the matters set forth herein, I could and would, testify
thereto competently under oath.
2.
I have personal knowledge of all of the facts set forth below.
10
3.
I submit this Supplemental Declaration in support of Plaintiffs
11
12
motion for final approval of the Settlement.

4.
Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of an article
13
published by the Wall Street Journal (Journal) on April 1, 2015. My purchased
14
subscription to the Journal provides me with the Journal on a daily basis and I can
15
confirm that the copy of the article attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and
16
correct copy of the exact article related to William Ackman, Pershing Square and
17
Herbalife that was published in the Journal on April 1, 2015.
18
5.
In the Herbalife litigation, Herbalife produced, subject to the
19
Protective Order, copies of surveys prepared by Lieberman Research Worldwide
20
(Lieberman), the Direct Selling Association (DSA survey) and by Actionable
21
Research (the Actionable survey). All three surveys were considered by Class
22
Counsel.
23
6.
On its website Lieberman states that it has been commissioned to
24
conduct surveys by Coca-Cola, Walt Disney corporation, McDonalds,
25
ExxonMobil, General Electric, Intel, Microsoft and Toyota. I am informed and
26
believe that Herbalife commissioned the Lieberman survey to independently
27
validate the size and composition of Herbalifes end users. The authors of the
28
Lieberman survey state that two independent studies took place between July 2012
1
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION ISO MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOT. FOR

PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
and October of 2012. The authors of the Lieberman survey state that the sample
size of respondents to the survey were 2,000 individuals over the age of 18, of
which the authors selected to match U. S. census data on age, gender, income,
region and ethnicity. The Lieberman survey concluded that over 70% of the
respondents purchased Herbalife products for self-consumption and approximately
half joined Herbalife with no expectation of making any money selling Herbalife
products.
8
9
7.
The DSA survey referenced by Objectors was obtained and reviewed
by Class Counsel prior to negotiating the Settlement. The DSA survey is an
10
industry-wide survey of the multi-level-marketing industry, and not specific to
11
Herbalife.
12
8.
While the Actionable survey is specific to Herbalife, it had only had
13
48 respondents, who were all supervisors. To become a supervisor in the Herbalife
14
distribution network, it required a distributor to regularly purchase specified levels
15
of product. Because supervisors had to purchase a specified level of product to
16
attain and maintain that status, it would be expected a high percentage of those
17
respondents would be pursuing a business opportunity as opposed to self-
18
consuming Herbalife product.
19
9.
Based on Class Counsels review of the Actionable survey, the DSA
20
survey and the Lieberman survey, we gave more weight to the Lieberman survey
21
because it was specific to Herbalife and it had a much larger number of
22
respondents, and those respondents included distributors who were not supervisors
23
10.
I am informed and believe that attorney Douglas Brooks, who
24
represents 18 of the objectors to the Settlement, previously filed two separate class
25
action complaints against Herbalife alleging that it was a pyramid scheme. The
26
first case was in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
27
entitled Jacobs, et al., v. Herbalife, et al., 2:02-cv-01431-SJO-RC (C.D. Cal). In
28
Jacobs, Mr. Brooks named as defendants both Herbalife and a third party that sold
2

marketing tools and sales leads to other distributors, commonly referred to in the
parlance of multi-level-marketing as a third party lead generator. See Declaration
of Douglas Brooks filed in support of motion for approval of settlement in Jacobs,
12, dated September 2, 2004, herein after Brooks Jacobs Decl., a true and
correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
11.
Based on my review of the pleadings in Jacobs, the District Court
declined to accept supplemental jurisdiction over the California state law claims
(Endless Chain) in the complaint and dismissed those claims as to all defendants,
including Herbalife. (Brooks Jacobs Decl. 30.) The plaintiffs represented by Mr.
10
Brooks in Jacobs then settled the case, using confirmatory discovery in support of
11
the settlement. (Brooks Jacobs Decl. 35; Exh. H attached hereto.) The Jacobs
12
settlement allowed for a reversionary $4 million cash component and a product
13
rebate component of $2 million. (Brooks Jacobs Decl. 38; Exh. H attached
14
hereto.) Attorney Brooks, sought $1.4 million in fees in Jacobs. (Brooks Jacobs
15
Decl. 53.) In justifying the settlement in Jacobs against one of the eleven
16
objectors who objected because Mr. Brooks had not named other third party lead
17
generators as defendants, Mr. Brooks stated: Moreover, the Settlement does not
18
release Financial Success Systems or any other Herbalife promotional system, and
19
distributors are free to pursue claims against such entitles if they so choose.
20
(Brooks Jacobs Decl. 51.)
21
12.
Just as in Jacobs, the 18 objectors represented by Mr. Brooks in this
22
Bostick litigation may participate in the Bostick Settlement and also pursue either
23
class or individual claims against third party lead generators for their alleged
24
consequential damages based on payments made to those third parties.
25
13.
Following the Jacobs settlement, attorney Brooks filed another
26
putative class case against Herbalife, Minton v. Herbalife, et. al., BC338305 (Los
27
Angeles County Sup.Ct.). Minton was a putative class action leads case against
28
Herbalife and various third party lead generators who sold the leads to class
3

members. See Declaration of Douglas Brooks filed in support of settlement in
Minton, 7 (herein after Brooks Minton Decl.), a true and correct copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit I. Even prior to Dukes, Comcast, and Mazza, the
California Superior Court in Mr. Brooks Minton case declined to certify a
nationwide class against the third party lead generators, and, instead conditionally
certified two California classes of plaintiffs. Attorney Brooks settled the Minton
case against Herbalife for $1.75 million. (Brooks Minton Decl. 17; Exhibit I
attached hereto, seeking attorneys fees not to exceed 35% of the $1.75 million
settlement fund in Minton (21).)
10
14.
I dont disparage Mr. Brooks experience as a plaintiffs class action
11
attorney based on the results that he obtained in Jacobs and Minton. Prior to the
12
filing of the original Bostick Complaint, my co-counsel Philip Dracht diligently
13
reviewed available pleadings in all prior class action filed against Herbalife,
14
including the pleadings in both Jacobs and Minton. We considered many
15
alternative potential causes of action prior to settling on the causes of action in the
16
original Complaint and First Amended Complaint. In my prior declaration filed in
17
support of Plaintiffs motion for preliminary approval, I recount my experience in
18
prosecuting and defending complex business litigation matters for forty years. In
19
my professional judgment, had my co-counsel and my firm attempted to prosecute
20
a putative class action against Herbalife and third party lead generators in an effort
21
to recover restitutionary damages, including compensatory damages, we would
22
have had no more success in doing so than Mr. Brooks had in Jacobs and Minton.
23
15.
Herbalife is an experienced and tenacious opponent whose officers
24
firmly believe that it is a legitimate multi-level-marketing business, and who have
25
repeatedly demonstrated that they will fight fiercely any allegations that Herbalife
26
is a pyramid scheme. As noted in my prior declaration filed in support of Class
27
Counsels motion for attorneys fees, Herbalife was for a period of time
28
simultaneously represented in Bostick by Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Morrison &

4

Forrester, and Bird Marella. Given the tenacious defense put up by Herbalife to
the manner in which the company conducts its business operations, it is my belief
that while the causes of action alleged in the original Complaint and First
Amended Complaint were limited to a recession theory of damages, we were able
to settle with Herbalife for a significantly higher monetary amount than Mr.
Brooks obtained in Jacobs and Minton, as the Bostick settlement is $15 million in
cash and $2.5 million in product return, than if we had attempted to litigate
alternative causes of action, which if successful might have permitted a recovery
of compensatory damages.
10
16.
It is also my professional judgment that the corporate reforms
11
included in the preliminarily-approved Bostick settlement are of significant value
12
to both the members of the Class who are still Herbalife distributors and future
13
distributors and members.
14
15
16
17
18
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 13th day of April, 2015 at Santa Barbara, California:
/s/Thomas G. Foley, Jr.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5


#:3749
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G

#:3750
Exhibit G
Page 1 of 6

#:3751
Exhibit G
Page 2 of 6

#:3752
Exhibit G
Page 3 of 6

#:3753
Exhibit G
Page 4 of 6

#:3754
Exhibit G
Page 5 of 6

#:3755
Exhibit G
Page 6 of 6

#:3756
EXHIBIT H
EXHIBIT H

#:3757
Exhibit H
Page 1 of 69

#:3758
Exhibit H
Page 2 of 69

#:3759
Exhibit H
Page 3 of 69

#:3760
Exhibit H
Page 4 of 69

#:3761
Exhibit H
Page 5 of 69

#:3762
Exhibit H
Page 6 of 69

#:3763
Exhibit H
Page 7 of 69

#:3764
Exhibit H
Page 8 of 69

#:3765
Exhibit H
Page 9 of 69

#:3766
Exhibit H
Page 10 of 69

#:3767
Exhibit H
Page 11 of 69

#:3768
Exhibit H
Page 12 of 69

#:3769
Exhibit H
Page 13 of 69

#:3770
Exhibit H
Page 14 of 69

#:3771
Exhibit H
Page 15 of 69

#:3772
Exhibit H
Page 16 of 69

#:3773
Exhibit H
Page 17 of 69

#:3774
Exhibit H
Page 18 of 69

#:3775
Exhibit H
Page 19 of 69

#:3776
Exhibit H
Page 20 of 69

#:3777
Exhibit H
Page 21 of 69

#:3778
Exhibit H
Page 22 of 69

#:3779
Exhibit H
Page 23 of 69

#:3780
Exhibit H
Page 24 of 69

#:3781
Exhibit H
Page 25 of 69

#:3782
Exhibit H
Page 26 of 69

#:3783
Exhibit H
Page 27 of 69

#:3784
Exhibit H
Page 28 of 69

#:3785
Exhibit H
Page 29 of 69

#:3786
Exhibit H
Page 30 of 69

#:3787
Exhibit H
Page 31 of 69

#:3788
Exhibit H
Page 32 of 69

#:3789
Exhibit H
Page 33 of 69

#:3790
Exhibit H
Page 34 of 69

#:3791
Exhibit H
Page 35 of 69

#:3792
Exhibit H
Page 36 of 69

#:3793
Exhibit H
Page 37 of 69

#:3794
Exhibit H
Page 38 of 69

#:3795
Exhibit H
Page 39 of 69

#:3796
Exhibit H
Page 40 of 69

#:3797
Exhibit H
Page 41 of 69

#:3798
Exhibit H
Page 42 of 69

#:3799
Exhibit H
Page 43 of 69

#:3800
Exhibit H
Page 44 of 69

#:3801
Exhibit H
Page 45 of 69

#:3802
Exhibit H
Page 46 of 69

#:3803
Exhibit H
Page 47 of 69

#:3804
Exhibit H
Page 48 of 69

#:3805
Exhibit H
Page 49 of 69

#:3806
Exhibit H
Page 50 of 69

#:3807
Exhibit H
Page 51 of 69

#:3808
Exhibit H
Page 52 of 69

#:3809
Exhibit H
Page 53 of 69

#:3810
Exhibit H
Page 54 of 69

#:3811
Exhibit H
Page 55 of 69

#:3812
Exhibit H
Page 56 of 69

#:3813
Exhibit H
Page 57 of 69

#:3814
Exhibit H
Page 58 of 69

#:3815
Exhibit H
Page 59 of 69

#:3816
Exhibit H
Page 60 of 69

#:3817
Exhibit H
Page 61 of 69

#:3818
Exhibit H
Page 62 of 69

#:3819
Exhibit H
Page 63 of 69

#:3820
Exhibit H
Page 64 of 69

#:3821
Exhibit H
Page 65 of 69

#:3822
Exhibit H
Page 66 of 69

#:3823
Exhibit H
Page 67 of 69

#:3824
Exhibit H
Page 68 of 69

#:3825
Exhibit H
Page 69 of 69

#:3826
EXHIBIT I
EXHIBIT I

#:3827
27383669
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
12
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
10
13
Oct 2 2009
1:36PM
DOUGLAS M. BROOKS
GILMAN AND PASTOR, LLP
63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 742-9700
Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
EDWARD L. MANCHUR
WHITTENBERG KNUDSEN, LLP
401 Edgewater Place, Suite 140
Wakefield, MA 01880
Telephone: (781) 246-3030
Facsimile: (781) 246-3050
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650

San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 788-4220
S CHUBERT J ONCKHEER K OLBE & K RALOWEC LLP
ROBERT C. SCHUBERT S.B.N. 62684

KIMBERLY A. KRALOWEC 163158
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER KOLBE & KRALOWEC LLP
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
15
16
17
DAWN MINTON and J. STEVE QUINNE,

Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated,
18
Plaintiffs,
19
v.
20
21
22
23
24
25
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

AMERICA, INC., FREEDOM LIFESTYLES,
INC.,d/b/a/ THE FREEDOM GROUP,
FREEDOM LIFESTYLES GROUP, INC,
FREEDOM LIFESTYLES,LLC, KURT and
CINDY OCONNELL, and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive
Case No. BC338305 (Lead Case)

Consolidated with Case No. BC338306
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS M.
BROOKS IN SUPPORT OF (1) MOTION
FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT AND (2) MOTION
FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES,
EXPENSES AND INCENTIVE AWARDS
Date:
Time:
Judge:
Dept.:
October 15, 2009

1:30 p.m.
Hon. Carl J. West
311- CCW
Defendants.
26
27
28
{00020372.DOC ; 1}
Exhibit I
Page 1 of 28

#:3828
1
I, Douglas M. Brooks, declare as follows:
1.
I am an attorney duly admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Board of Bar Overseers No. 058850, and admitted in this Court pro hac vice. I am a member of the
4
5
6
7
9
10
the plaintiff class in the above-captioned action.

2.
I have participated actively in all material aspects of this litigation. Unless otherwise
indicated, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called upon to testify I could
and would testify competently thereto. The purpose of this affidavit, which summarizes our work
on the case, is to support both:
11
(415) 788-4220
law firm of Gilman and Pastor, LLP (G&P), one of the firms appointed by the Court to represent
A.
12
Plaintiffs Motion for Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action

Settlement, which provides a Settlement Fund of $1.75 million; and
13
B.
14
15
Plaintiffs Counsels Motion for an award of attorneys fees in the amount of

$612,500 (35% of the Settlement Fund), reimbursement of expenses in the
16
amount of $62,048.18, and incentive awards to the four named plaintiffs in the
17
amount of $5,000 each.
18
19
3.
As appears from the Declaration of Markham Sherwood of Gilardi & Co., LLC, the
20
Court-appointed notice and claims administrator, over 93.5% of the class received direct notice of
21
the settlement by first class mail. No class member has objected to the settlement, or to the request
22
for fees, expenses and incentive awards. Only one class member opted out of the class. The notice
23
and claims administrator has received 121 claims, with an aggregate value of $1,412,899.76. The
24
25
26
27
28
absence of objections, the single opt out (1/10 of 1% of the class), and the relatively large number of
claims, constitute a ringing endorsement of the Settlement.
4.
Speaking on behalf of all Plaintiffs Counsel, we believe that this is an excellent
settlement, and constitutes a fair and reasonable compromise of hotly disputed claims. Assuming
{00020372.DOC ; 1}
Exhibit I
Page 2 of 28
1.

#:3829
1
that this Court grants our request for an award of attorneys fees and reimbursement of costs,
claimants will receive over 72% of their economic losses from the Settlement Fund. This is a better
recovery than they would have obtained had they retained their own counsel on a one third
4
contingency fee agreement, filed individual lawsuits and been awarded 100% of their economic
losses.1 For this reason, and for all of the reasons discussed below and in Plaintiffs Motion for
Final Approval of Settlement, we believe that the Settlement is in the best interest of the class and
should be approved.
9
10
5.
We also believe that the proposed award of attorneys fees and reimbursement of
expenses is appropriate given the results obtained and the work involved. The investigation and
11
(415) 788-4220
12
prosecution of this case has consumed a substantial portion of our time over the past four and a half
13
years, as well as substantial unreimbursed expenses. Our efforts and investment of time and money
14
have produced an excellent recovery in the face of significant obstacles. We collectively devoted
15
more than 3,600 hours in attorney time and over 370 hours in paralegal time to this case and
16
undertook significant risk in pursuing this litigation on an entirely contingent basis.
17
6.
We also seek approval of award incentive payments of $5,000 to each of the named
18
19
plaintiffs. The requested incentive awards are reasonable given the named plaintiffs substantial
20
services on behalf of the Class and the policy of encouraging people to come forward to litigate
21
meritorious claims on behalf of their fellow consumers
22
Prior Proceedings
23
7.
In or about January of 2005, we were retained by Plaintiffs Dawn Minton and
24
25
26
Rebecca Adams to investigate and prosecute claims on behalf of Herbalife distributors involved in
the Freedom Group and Vertical Skip Marketing lead generation systems. These consolidated
27
28
Of course, it is unlikely that any claimant would have been able to retain counsel to bring
individual lawsuits, given the relatively small claims at stake here.
{00020372.DOC ; 1}
Exhibit I
Page 3 of 28
2.

#:3830
1
actions were both filed in February of 2005. Following jurisdictional discovery, the Freedom Group
Defendants Motion to Quash or Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or Forum Non Conveniens was
denied by this Court on August 1, 2006.2
4
8.
In January of 2007, following a period of class discovery and limited merits
discovery, Plaintiffs filed motions to certify nationwide classes in both cases. Class discovery
continued, including production of thousands of documents, electronic data and depositions of the
proposed class representatives, Dawn Minton and Rebecca Adams. The issue of class certification
9
10
was the subject of extensive briefing by all parties and a hearing was held by this Court on
November 28, 2007.
11
(415) 788-4220
9.
12
On January 24, 2008, this Court issued an order certifying California-only classes in
13
both cases but denying nationwide certification. The Order conditionally certified two California
14
classesa Freedom Group class commencing February 1, 1999 and a VSM class commencing
15
February 1, 2004--with respect to Plaintiffs Endless Chain Scheme claim, and also conditionally
16
certified a California class on Ms. Adams UCL claim to the extent it is premised on violation of
17
the Endless Chain Scheme Law . Certification of both classes was conditional upon substitution
18
19
of new class representatives, since neither Ms. Minton nor Ms. Adams were California residents.
10.
20
We notified a number of putative class members of the need for new class
21
representatives, and interviewed a number of candidates, ultimately identifying new representatives
22
for both classes: Steve Quinne for the Freedom Group class and Dianna Duniven for the Vertical
23
Skip Marketing class. Both Mr. Quinne and Ms. Duniven produced their relevant documents,
24
25
26
27
answered written interrogatories and appeared for day-long depositions. Defendants did not contest
the adequacy of either representative, and on January 8, 2009 the Court issued an order certifying
California classes in both cases.
28
2
The Court granted the motion to quash as to one defendant, Freedom Lifestyles, LLC.
{00020372.DOC ; 1}
Exhibit I
Page 4 of 28
3.

#:3831
1
2
3
11.
The core claim in these consolidated actions is that the combination of the Herbalife
multi-level marketing plan and both the Freedom Group and Vertical Skip Marketing lead
generation systems result in endless chain schemes in violation of California Penal Code section
4
5
12.
From the outset of the case it was clear that the parties sharply disagreed with each
others factual and legal contentions, that the action would be vigorously contested, that the ultimate
outcome of the litigation was uncertain and that any substantial delay could make it difficult to
provide meaningful relief to the Class.
10
Settlement Negotiations
11
(415) 788-4220
327.
12
13.
On several occasions prior to December of 2008 the parties briefly explored the
13
possibility of settlement. These discussions never progressed beyond the preliminary stages, and it
14
became clear that the parties were far apart in their respective evaluations of the merits of the case
15
and the potential damages.
16
14.
On December 15, 2008, the Court ordered the parties to appear for a Mandatory
17
Settlement Conference on January 22, 2009. Prior to the conference, all parties submitted separate,
18
19
20
21
22
23
confidential settlement memoranda to the Court, setting forth their views as to the merits and
damages.
15.
During the conference, the parties outlined the specifics of their claims and defenses
to the Court, advocated their positions, and exchanged a number of proposals and counterproposals.
While this day-long conference did not result in a settlement, and the parties remained far apart, the
24
25
26
27
Court continued the conference to February 23, 2009.

16.
After further discussions the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle all
claims. The Settlement Agreement reflects the agreement reached at the settlement conference.
28
{00020372.DOC ; 1}
Exhibit I
Page 5 of 28
4.

#:3832
1
Terms of the Proposed Settlement
17.
Pursuant to the Settlement, the Herbalife Defendants have paid $1.75 million into a
non-reversionary fund. After payment of any counsel fees, expenses and incentive payments
4
awarded by the Court, as well as the expense of class notice and claims administration, the net fund
will be distributed to class members who submit valid claims pursuant to a plan of distribution
developed by Plaintiffs counsel. Any funds not paid to class members or for fees, litigation
expenses, incentive awards or costs of administration will be distributed cy pres to non-profit
entities selected by the parties and approved by the Court.
10
Distribution of the Class Notice
11
(415) 788-4220
12
18.
Following this Courts preliminary approval of the Settlement, the Notice and Claims
13
Administrator mailed the Class Notice by first-class mail to the 1,026 putative Settlement Class
14
Members who were identified in Defendants records. Sherwood Decl., 3. Of the 242 mailings
15
that were returned undeliverable, the Notice and Claims Administrator was able to obtain updated
16
addresses for 176, which were remailed. Sherwod Decl., 5. Accordingly, approximately 93.5% of
17
the putative class members received the Class Notice by first class mail.
18
19
19.
The reaction of the class to the settlement has been overwhelmingly positive. Only
20
one class member opted out and not a single class member has objected. Sherwood Decl., 8-9.
21
As of the claims deadline, September 17, 2009, a total of 121 class members had filed claims
22
(including one late claim), with aggregate losses of $1,412,899.76 (including claims which the
23
claims administrator is still reviewing). Sherwood Decl., 13-15. One class member, Ms. Denise
24
25
26
27
Terry, has served notice that she intends to appear at the final approval hearing to speak to the court
on the impact of the Herbalife Freedom Group business opportunity on my life. A copy of Ms.
Terrys notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A. We are advised by the Notice and Claims
28
{00020372.DOC ; 1}
Exhibit I
Page 6 of 28
5.

#:3833
1
Administrator that Ms. Terry has submitted a substantial claim. Ms. Terry had not indicated that she
has any objection to the settlement.
Qualifications of Plaintiffs Counsel
4
20.
Throughout this litigation Plaintiffs have been represented by three firms, all of
which have expertise in consumer class actions in general, and in pyramid marketing schemes in
particular. The firm resume of Gilman and Pastor LLP is attached as Exhibit B hereto. The firm
resume of Schubert Jonckheer Kolbe and Kralowec LLP is attached as Exhibit C to the Kralowec
9
10
Declaration and the firm resume of Whittenberg Knudsen LLP is attached as Exhibit C to the
Manchur Declaration, both of which are submitted herewith. From the inception of the case we
11
(415) 788-4220
12
worked together to avoid any duplication of effort.
13
Fees and Expenses
14
21.
15
16
The Class Notice explained that Plaintiffs counsel intended to apply for
reimbursement of their reasonable fees (not to exceed 35% of the Settlement Fund) and expenses
(not to exceed $70,000), plus incentive awards to the four named plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000
17
each, to be paid from the Settlement Fund. Accordingly, Plaintiffs counsel have filed a motion for
18
19
an award of fees in the amount $612,500 (35% of the Settlement Fund), expenses in the amount of
20
$62,048.18 and incentive awards in the amount of $5,000 for each of the four named plaintiffs.
21
These requests are unopposed by any party, and no class member has objected to them.
22
23
22.
This litigation was undertaken by Plaintiffs Counsel on a wholly contingent basis.
The litigation was extremely complex from a technical and legal perspective and was undertaken
24
25
26
with high risk, including but not limited to the following: (1) it was uncertain as to whether the
Court would grant certification of the Class (in fact the class ultimately certified by the Court was
27
both smaller (limited to California residents as opposed to a nationwide class) and narrower in scope
28
(limited to Plaintiffs endless chain scheme claims and excluding Plaintiffs claims for common law
{00020372.DOC ; 1}
Exhibit I
Page 7 of 28
6.

#:3834
1
fraud and the California Seller Assisted Marketing Plan law); (2) substantial risks existed both with
respect to establishing liability and proving damages, especially in light of the difficulty of proving
that a publicly held, multinational corporation with over two billion dollars in annual sales was
4
engaged in an illegal endless chain scheme; (3) key elements of Plaintiffs claims would be the
subject of expert testimony, leading to an expensive battle of the experts; (4) substantial risks
existed as to the collectability of any judgment against the non-Herbalife defendants, and Herbalife
would (and did) argue that the non-Herbalife defendants were the primary malefactors, and
9
10
vigorously dispute that it was in any way responsible or liable for the conduct of the non-Herbalife
defendants.
11
(415) 788-4220
12
23.
We accepted these and other risks, diligently and vigorously prosecuted the litigation
13
and obtained this Settlement because of our effort, skill and reputations. This Settlement is entirely
14
the result of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsels hard work and diligence: no other Class Members
15
or attorneys were both willing and able to accept the risk of this litigation. This is not a case where
16
the outcome was so certain and the potential recovery so high that the Court was faced with a
17
number of Plaintiffs law firms vying to be appointed lead counsel.
18
19
24.
Gilman and Pastor LLP maintained contemporaneous records of the time spent on
20
this litigation and I am advised that the other Plaintiffs Counsel did as well. The detailed time
21
records, which contain references to matters which are privileged or subject to the work product
22
doctrine, are available for submission to the Court in camera if the Court deems it appropriate. A
23
summary of the time spent and hourly rates of each attorney or paralegal who worked on the case in
24
25
26
27
Gilman and Pastor LLP through September 24, 2009 is submitted herewith as Exhibit C. Similar
summaries are being submitted for the other Plaintiffs Counsel. Kralowec Decl., Exhibit A;
Manchur Decl., Exhibit A. The aggregate lodestar of the three firms is $1,795,365.50. This amount
28
{00020372.DOC ; 1}
Exhibit I
Page 8 of 28
7.

#:3835
1
does not include time spent preparing for and appearing at the final approval hearing, nor does it
include time that we anticipate will be spent in connection with claims administration.
25.
The net fee requested of $612,500 represents a fractional multiplier of 0.34
4
5
6
and the absence of any objections by the class, a fee award equivalent to one third of counsels
lodestar is prima facie reasonable and should be approved.
8
9
10
26.
A summary of the expenses incurred by Gilman and Pastor LLP is submitted
herewith as Exhibit D. Similar summaries are being submitted for the other Plaintiffs Counsel.
Kralowec Decl., Exhibit B; Manchur Decl., Exhibit B. These expenses include: (1) photocopying;
11
(415) 788-4220
approximately one third of Plaintiffs counsels lodestar. Given the excellent results achieved
12
(2) overnight delivery and postage; (3) expert fees; (4) travel related expenses; (5) telephone and
13
facsimile charges; (6) filing fees; (7) deposition fees; (8) online research expenses; and (9)
14
messenger/courier expenses. These costs are of the type we typically bill to paying clients. As
15
appears from the referenced exhibits, Plaintiffs Counsel have incurred an aggregate of $62,048.18
16
in expenses to date. These expenses were reasonably and necessarily incurred in the prosecution of
17
this action, and should be approved. As with the time records, detailed records of these expenses are
18
19
available for submission to the Court in camera if necessary.
20
Incentive Awards
21
27.
22
23
We also seek approval of award incentive payments of $5,000 to each of the named
plaintiffs, to reflect their crucial roles in representing the class and providing invaluable assistance to
Plaintiffs Counsel in prosecuting this action. The requested incentive awards are reasonable given
24
25
26
27
28
the named plaintiffs substantial services on behalf of the Class and the policy of encouraging
people to come forward to litigate meritorious claims on behalf of their fellow consumers.
28.
Plaintiffs Minton and Adams served as putative representatives of the proposed
nationwide class from February of 2005 until this Courts order of January 24, 2008, which
{00020372.DOC ; 1}
Exhibit I
Page 9 of 28
8.

#:3836
1
conditionally certified California-only classes. They continued to actively consult with Plaintiffs
Counsel concerning the prosecution and settlement of this case following that order. Following this
Courts January 24, 2008 Order, Plaintiffs Duniven and Quinne served as representatives of the
4
certified California classes. All of the named plaintiffs performed substantial services as class
representatives, including responding to voluminous document requests and interrogatories and
testifying at their respective depositions, each of which lasted a day or more.3 All of them have
remained in regular communication with Plaintiffs Counsel to keep themselves apprised of the
9
10
status of the case and they have provided information and comments to Plaintiffs Counsel about the
defendants, potential witnesses and the operation of the Herbalife system. In particular, Plaintffs
11
(415) 788-4220
12
Minton and Adams spent many hours consulting with Plaintiffs Counsel both before these cases
13
were filed and during the pendency of the litigation concerning many factual and operational aspects
14
of the Herbalife marketing plan and the Vertical Skip Marketing and Freedom Group lead
15
generation systems. Plaintiffs Duniven and Quinne stepped forward to serve as California class
16
representatives at a time when the defendants were aggressively defending the case, and spent many
17
hours communicating with Plaintiffs Counsel, providing a great deal of input into our continued
18
19
20
prosecution of the case and ultimate settlement. This is not a case where the class representatives
were mere figureheads, lending their names to the litigation. All four named plaintiffs took active
21
22
3
23
24
25
26
27
28
It should be noted that due to the nature of this case, which involved small business
distributorships, the scope and volume of documents which the named Plaintiffs were required to
produce were much great than typically called for in class actions. Among other things Plaintiffs
had to produce marketing materials, substantial quantities of correspondence, receipts and invoices
for business expenses and transactions of Herbalife products and sales aids, as well as tax forms and
records. Plaintiff Minton produced 7,362 pages of documents, Adams produced 683 pages, Quinne
produced 7,550 pages and Duniven produced 450 pages. All of the Plaintiffs had to undergo
detailed searches for relevant documents and emails on their personal computers. In addition to the
time actually spent testifying at their depositions, each of the Plaintiffs spent many hours with
Plaintiffs counsel preparing for what was expected to be, and which actually was, very grueling
questioning by Defendants counsel.
{00020372.DOC ; 1}
Exhibit I
Page 10 of 28
9.

#:3837
Exhibit I
Page 11 of 28

#:3838
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit I
Page 12 of 28

#:3839
Exhibit I
Page 13 of 28

#:3840
EXHIBIT B
Exhibit I
Page 14 of 28

#:3841
EXHIBIT B
GILMAN AND PASTOR, LLP

FIRM RESUME
GILMAN AND PASTOR, LLP is a law firm which concentrates in class action litigation on
behalf of investors, consumers and small businesses. The firm has broad experience in the areas
of securities, consumer protection, products liability, antitrust and other types of complex
litigation. The firm litigates cases throughout the country, including both federal and state
courts. Many of the firm's cases have involved complex multi-district litigation, including
appearances before the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation. The attorneys in the firm are
experienced in, and thoroughly familiar with, all aspects of class action litigation, including the
underlying substantive law, the procedures recommended in the Manual for Complex Litigation,
and the substance and procedure of class certification. The firm has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for the clients it has represented.
REPRESENTATIVE CASES BY AREA OF PRACTICE
Consumer Protection and Antitrust
The firm is actively involved in litigation involving price-fixing and other anti-competitive
conduct, deceptive sales practices, and unfair and deceptive trade practices.
In In re Carbon Fibers Antitrust Litigation, No. 02-2385A (Middlesex Superior Court, Mass.)
Gilman and Pastor served as Lead Class Counsel in the antitrust suit alleging a price-fixing
conspiracy by the manufacturers of carbon fiber. After extensive litigation, the firm reached
settlements totaling in excess of $2.7 million on behalf of a class of Massachusetts end-users of
carbon fiber products.
Gilman and Pastor, LLP has been appointed by the Trial Court in the consolidated Massachusetts
Indirect Purchaser Actions. The firm was also appointed by the District Court to the Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs Executive Committee in In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM)
Antitrust Litigation, No. M 02-1486 (N.D. Cal.) and is currently litigating the case on behalf of
indirect purchasers nationwide.
In In re Microsoft Massachusetts Consumer Protection Litigation, No. 00-2456 (Middlesex
Superior Court), Gilman and Pastor, LLP was co-lead counsel and obtained a settlement valued
at $34 million, which was approved by the Court.
Gilman and Pastor, LLP served as sole Class Counsel in Fortin v. Ajinomoto, et al, (Civil Action
No. 02-2345C, Middlesex Superior Court, Mass.), and obtained class settlements totaling $8.2
million.
{00020285.DOC ; 1}
Exhibit I
Page 15 of 28

#:3842
Gilman and Pastor, LLP served as a member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee in Ciardi v. F.
Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd., et al., (Civil Action No. 99-03244, Middlesex Superior Court, Mass.), a
case that created new law in Massachusetts conferring standing upon indirect purchasers for
claims arising from price-fixing or other anti-competitive conduct. Settlement funds valued at
over $22.5 million were obtained and distributed to over 300 charitable organizations providing
food and nutrition programs in Massachusetts.
Gilman and Pastor, LLP served as sole counsel in Boos v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 95-10091
(D.Mass.), which was the first case in which indirect purchasers in Massachusetts ever recovered
damages arising from a price-fixing conspiracy. The case was settled in 1997 for $2.5 million.
Gilman and Pastor, LLP served as lead counsel in Muccioli v. Sony Computer Entertainment
America, Inc., No. 413148 (San Mateo Cty. California Superior Court) and obtained a substantial
nationwide class settlement that provided free service and repairs during an extended warranty
period and partial refunds of past repair costs to purchasers of Sony Playstation Models 1001 and
5501 in an action arising out of alleged product defects, breaches of warranty, and deceptive
trade practices.
The firm was lead counsel in Hardy v. Sears Roebuck & Co., Civil Action No. 98-CH-06305
(Cook County, Illinois) obtaining a nationwide class settlement which provided warranty repairs
to consumers who purchased home improvement services from Sears and its authorized
contractors.
The firm was a member of the Plaintiffs' Counsels' Steering Committee in In re High Fructose
Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1083, (C.D. Ill.), an antitrust suit alleging a price
fixing conspiracy on the part of manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup. As a member of the
Steering Committee, the firm litigated the case for over five years. That case has now resulted in
settlements totaling approximately $500 million.
Gilman and Pastor, LLP served as sole counsel for the class in Anslono v. Thorn Americas, Inc.
(Civil Action No. 98-0049, Suffolk Superior Court Department, Mass.), and obtained a class
settlement of claims for false advertising of rent to own contracts.
In In re Packard Bell Consumer Class Action Litigation, No. BC 125671 (California Superior
Court), Gilman and Pastor, LLP served as counsel and obtained a substantial settlement for
purchasers of reconditioned personal computer systems which were falsely advertised as
new.
In In re Miracle Ear Consumer Litigation, No. 94-1696 (Dist. Ct. Minn.), Gilman and Pastor,
LLP served as counsel and obtained a substantial settlement for purchasers of hearing aids which
had been falsely advertised.
{00020285.DOC ; 1}
Exhibit I
Page 16 of 28

#:3843
Gilman and Pastor, LLP has been actively involved in litigation arising from life insurance sales
practices, including Michaels v. Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company, Index No.
5318-95 (NY.Sup.Ct., Albany County), 1997 N.Y.Misc. LEXIS 171 (1996) (approving class
settlement); Natal v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company, Index No. 694829
(CA.Sup.Ct., San Diego County, 1997) (approving class settlement); In re: Manufacturers Life
Insurance Company Premium Litigation, MDL No. 1109 (S.D.Cal.) (substantial settlement for
class); In re: Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada Insurance Litigation, MDL No. 1102
(D.N.J.) (substantial settlement for class); In re: New England Mutual Life Insurance Company
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1105 (D.Mass.) (court appointed Gilman and Pastor, LLP as
liaison counsel in MDL proceeding; court subsequently approved substantial class settlement);
Duhaine v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company (Civil Action No. 96-10706-GAO,
D.Mass.) (substantial class settlement).
Gilman and Pastor, LLP has developed unique expertise in litigation involving pyramid
marketing schemes, including obtaining significant decisions in Webster v. Omnitrition, 79 F.3d
776, 782 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that multi-level marketing firm could be found to be a pyramid
scheme and an investment security where there was no evidence that it actually enforced antipyramid requirements; class settlement approved following successful appeal by Gilman and
Pastor); Capone v. Nu Skin Canada, Inc. (Case No. 93-C-2855, D.Utah) (Gilman and Pastor
obtained court approval of settlement of class claims against multi-level marketing firm after
successfully opposing multiple motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and after
extensive discovery); Rhodes v. Consumers' Buyline, Inc., 868 F.Supp. 368 (D.Mass. 1993)
(case settled after Gilman and Pastor obtained court ruling that contractual arbitration clause was
unenforceable because distributorship agreement violated public policies against pyramid
marketing schemes); Jacobs v. Herbalife International, Inc. (Case No. CV 02-1431, C.D.Cal.)
(Gilman and Pastor served as co-lead counsel in class action involving Newest Way to Wealth,
a purported lead generation system for Herbalife distributors; court approved $6 million
nationwide class settlement).
Defective Products
Gilman and Pastor, LLP is actively involved in litigation involving defective products, including
defective building products, pharmaceutical products, motor vehicles, electronics and other
products.
In In re Shake Roof Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4208, (Contra Costa
Cty, California Superior Court), the Court granted final approval to a $61,420,000 partial
settlement fund for owners of properties on which certain manufactured cement composite
roofing products were installed. Gilman and Pastor, LLP was one of four firms that represented
the class members. After extensive litigation on all fronts, the case was partially settled during
trial against certain defendants for over $61 million dollars.
{00020285.DOC ; 1}
Exhibit I
Page 17 of 28

#:3844
In Sebago, Inc., et al. v. Beazer East, Inc., et al., No. 96-10069 (D. Mass.), Gilman and Pastor,
LLP served as lead class counsel in a suit on behalf of owners of buildings with corrosive
phenolic foam roof insulation. The litigation was extremely contentious, involved numerous
potentially dispositive motions, discovery motions and extensive class certification proceedings.
The defendants ultimately produced hundreds of thousands of documents as well as hundreds of
depositions. To prepare for hearings on class certification, summary judgment and trial, Gilman
and Pastor marshaled testimony from experts in a variety of disciplines, including roof
engineering, structural engineering, materials science and corrosion, and financial analysis. The
firm obtained a significant decision upholding RICO claims against the manufacturers. See
Sebago, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc., 18 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.Mass. 1998). The Court recently
approved nationwide class settlements with the two manufacturers of the phenolic foam
insulation, worth a combined estimated present value of more than $240 million.
In Coleman, et al. v. GAF Building Materials Corporation, No. CV-96-0954-GALANOS (Circuit
Court of Mobile County, Alabama), Gilman and Pastor, LLP served as lead counsel for a
nationwide class of persons who owned properties with defective roofing shingles. The firm
recently obtained a settlement with benefits estimated at a present value in excess of $75 million.
In Paradis v. Bird Incorporated, No. 00-C-0235 (Merrimack, N.H. Superior Court), Gilman and
Pastor, LLP served as lead counsel on behalf of purchasers of Bird defective roofing shingles.
The settlement obtained was valued at approximately $9.6 million.
Other cases handled by the firm involving defective building products include Foster v. ABTco,
Inc. (Civil Action No. CV95-151-M, Choctaw County, Alabama) (defective hardboard siding;
nationwide class certified and class settlement approved); In re Louisiana-Pacific Corporation
Inner-Seal OSB Trade Practices Litigation, (Master File No. C-95-3178-VRW, N.D.Cal.)
(defective oriented strand board (OSB); nationwide class certified and settlement approved).
Securities
The firm is actively involved in litigation on behalf of defrauded individual and institutional
investors in both class action and shareholder derivative litigation.
In In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 03-10165-RWZ (D. Mass.),
Gilman and Pastor is one of the firms representing the lead plaintiff in a securities fraud case
involving the companys misrepresentations about correspondence from the FDA with respect to
prospects for approval of one of the companys key products. The court has denied the
defendants motion to dismiss, and the case is now in the discovery phase.
In Brumbaugh v. Wave Systems Corporation, No. 04-30022-MAP (D. Mass.), the firm
represents the court-appointed lead plaintiffs. This is a securities case arising out of the
companys misrepresentations and omissions concerning two purported license agreements with
major corporations for the companys digital security products.
The firm served as Co-Lead Counsel in In re Blech Securities Litigation, 94-CIV-7696-RWS
(S.D. N.Y.) asserting market manipulation claims against the brokerage firm of D. Blech & Co.,
{00020285.DOC ; 1}
Exhibit I
Page 18 of 28

#:3845
its principals, its clearing broker, and several other alleged participants in connection with an
alleged scheme to inflate the prices of various biotechnology securities. In a vigorously litigated
case, the firm and its co-counsel obtained certification of a class of purchasers of 22 separate
securities, successfully opposed various motions to dismiss, and, subsequently, motions for
summary judgment, and after extensive discovery and trial preparation, negotiated over $15
million in cash settlements on behalf of the class. This case resulted in several reported opinions,
including one that has been frequently cited and referred to by commentators on the issue of
clearing broker liability. In re Blech Securities Litigation, 961 F. Supp. 569 (S.D. N.Y. 1997).
Gilman and Pastor, LLP served as Co-Lead Counsel in Hynes v. The Enstar Group, Inc., et al.
90-C-1204-N (M.D. Alabama). In the face of substantial risks of an unsuccessful outcome due
to the bankruptcy (and consequent immunity from suit) of Enstar and the bankruptcy of Enstar's
chairman who was the chief architect of the fraud, Gilman and Pastor, LLP aggressively litigated
the case on behalf of the Class and obtained settlements totaling in excess of $19 million from
several defendants, including a major accounting firm, a major law firm, and former outside
directors after the conclusion of extensive discovery and immediately prior to the scheduled trial.
Subsequently, Gilman and Pastor, LLP won an additional $4.1 million for the class in collateral
litigation against Michael Milken and related entities.
The firm was Co-Lead Counsel in Cooper v. Kana, et al. Civil Action No. 3:98-CV-2804-M
(N.D. Texas) on behalf of purchasers of CPS Systems, Inc. (CPS) stock in connection with its
$8.74 million initial public offering (IPO) and trading on the American Stock Exchange
thereafter, against CPS, its officers and directors, the underwriters for its IPO, and CPSs
independent auditors, alleging misstatements in the IPO Prospectus and subsequent press
releases and SEC filings concerning CPSs revenue recognition methods and reported revenues
and earnings. After CPS restated its earnings and filed bankruptcy, the firm and its co-counsel
obtained class certification, defeated various motions to dismiss, conducted discovery, engaged
in two separate mediations, and ultimately recovered $3.44 million in cash settlements on behalf
of the class against the remaining defendants.
The firm served as Co-Lead Counsel in Lynn v. Infinity Investors Limited, et al. 3:97-CV-226
(E.D. Tenn.), a case asserting claims for open market securities fraud and for breach of contract
arising out of an alleged complex scheme to evade the requirements of Regulation S of the
Securities Act of 1933 and to manipulate the market prices of United Petroleum Corporation
(UPET) stock. The firm obtained class certification, successfully objected to UPETs
bankruptcy plan in another jurisdiction that would have otherwise dismissed the action with
prejudice, and overcame other significant obstacles in a vigorously litigated case to ultimately
obtain a $4 million cash settlement, recovering a very substantial portion of actual losses claimed
by class members.
{00020285.DOC ; 1}
Exhibit I
Page 19 of 28

#:3846
Gilman and Pastor, LLP served as Co-Lead Counsel in In re Hallwood Energy Partners L.P.
Securities Litigation, 90-Civ-1555-JFK (S.D.N.Y.) in which a $9.1 million settlement was
obtained after five years of intensive litigation. This class action arose out of a complex merger
and exchange offer transaction involving several publicly traded oil and gas limited partnership
entities. The litigation challenged the fairness of the exchange and involved highly complex oil
and gas valuations and methodologies. Gilman and Pastor, LLP effectively managed the
litigation and diligently prosecuted the case on behalf of a Class of approximately forty thousand
unitholders.
Gilman and Pastor, LLP served as Co-Lead Counsel in Caven v. Miller, et al. No. H-96-CV3464 (EW) (S.D. Tex.), a shareholder derivative action arising out of the merger of a publicly
held hospital company with and into a firm in the same industry that had been privately held.
After the merger, the successor firm downwardly restated its financial results due to its own
previously undisclosed accounting irregularities and losses. After defeating motions to dismiss
on various grounds, conducting discovery, and engaging in mediations, Plaintiffs recovered over
$18 million in benefits on behalf of the successor company from various insiders of both
companies involved.
The firm served as one of four co-lead counsel representing a class of securities purchasers in In
re Immunex Securities Litigation, No. C92-548 (W.D. Wash.), and obtained a settlement of $14
million.
The firm served as one of three co-lead counsel representing a class of limited partners in In re
Oxford Tax Exempt Fund Securities Litigation, No. 95-3643 (D. Md.), a case asserting federal
securities and related common law claims arising out of a complex partnership restructuring
transaction, and obtained a settlement valued in excess of $11 million.
Gilman and Pastor, LLP served as lead counsel in Sullivan, et al. v. Shearson California
Radisson Plaza Partners, Limited Partnership, et al., No. 89-5472-JMI (C.D. Cal.), a case arising
out of a publicly offered limited partnership wherein claims under the 1934 Exchange Act and
the 1933 Securities Act were asserted on behalf of the investors. The case involved complex
issues of hotel appraisal and valuation, and resulted in a settlement valued in excess of $11
million on behalf of the class.
In Hartley v. Stamford Towers Limited Partnership, et al., No. C-90-2146-JPV (N.D. Cal.),
another action arising out of a public limited partnership offering, the firm served as co-lead
counsel for the investor class and obtained a settlement of $6.5 million. In that litigation the
plaintiffs engaged in extensive discovery and negotiations and consultation with real estate
valuation experts, in the face of several challenging obstacles.
The firm served as co-lead counsel representing a class of more than 4,000 investors in a series
of oil and gas drilling programs in the Woodlands Energy and Development Corporation/
Intercomex Financial Corp. Litigation (encompassing several related civil actions in various
federal and state courts in Texas and California). That litigation involved complicated securities
issues, as well as certain novel insurance liability questions, and was also contested vigorously
by the defendants with respect to every aspect of the case. In that case, plaintiffs' counsel
overcame several rounds of briefing on motions to dismiss the pleadings and a vigorous
opposition to class certification. Counsel then engaged in a long series of merits discovery, and
Exhibit I
{00020285.DOC ; 1}
Page 20 of 28

#:3847
eventually took part in intense negotiations that led to several partial settlements. Ultimately,
Gilman and Pastor, LLP, together with their co-counsel, recovered in excess of $11 million for
investors.
The firm was one of four firms actively involved in Alert Income Partners Securities Litigation,
No. 92-2-9150 (D. Colo.) a securities class action brought against promoters of a series of
limited partnerships, their auditors and other parties. After extensive discovery, a settlement was
reached valued at $60 million.
Gilman and Pastor, LLP, as lead class counsel, achieved a successful settlement in the case of
Hutson, et al. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, et al., No. 89 Civ. 8358 (L.M.M.)
(S.D.N.Y.). That case, which arose out of the offering of limited partnership interests, involved
mortgage revenue bonds issued by many state and local government agencies which were
secured by participating non-recourse mortgage loans on fourteen apartment projects and
retirement communities. As lead counsel, Gilman and Pastor, LLP was responsible for and
managed all aspects of the complex litigation which also involved the subject areas of real estate
financing and valuation, secured lending and foreclosure. In addition, because the case involved
a 1985 offering, there were serious statute of limitations questions facing plaintiffs and plaintiffs
counsel. Despite these momentous problems, the firm obtained a settlement valued at $14
million for the class. Judge McKenna, in approving the settlement, praised plaintiffs' counsel for
their efficient work.
Gilman and Pastor, LLP was one of five firms actively involved in the In re Granada Partnership
Securities Litigation, MDL No. 837 (S.D. Tex.), in which a partial settlement in excess of $14
million was reached with certain of the defendants. This was an extremely contentious lawsuit in
which every procedural step was a pitched battle. After protracted litigation with extensive
motion practice, the partial settlement was reached, which accounted for virtually all of the
available financial resources of the settling defendants.
Other examples of the firm's litigation ability are the dual settlements achieved in the related
cases styled In re Permian Partners, L.P. Securities Litigation, No. 11373 (Del. Ch. Ct.) and
Rodgers v. National Intergroup, Inc., et al. No. 90-11653-Z (D. Mass.). Gilman and Pastor, LLP
was designated as lead counsel and directed and participated in every aspect of the cases. The
first settlement, valued at $6.1 million, plus non-monetary benefits, arose out of an action in the
Delaware Chancery Court challenging a merger of limited partnership interests. Gilman and
Pastor, LLP conducted extensive discovery in that litigation, most of which was done on an
expedited basis, and consulted with experts, including authorities on oil and gas. The litigation
involved many complex issues, including issues relating to the valuation of interstate and
intrastate pipeline assets. The settlement was reached after the conclusion of expedited
discovery and prior to a hearing on our motion for preliminary injunction. The second settlement
successfully concluded litigation in the U.S District Court in Massachusetts arising out of the
1987 public offering of the partnership interests which later became the subject of the merger
proposal.
{00020285.DOC ; 1}
Exhibit I
Page 21 of 28
#:3848
Gilman and Pastor, LLP has also played a major role in significant litigation challenging limited
partnership roll-ups, restructurings, exchanges and mergers, including the Hallwood Energy,
Oxford and Permian cases described above, Adam et al. v. Berkshire Realty Corporation, No.
90-12864 WF (D. Mass), where the firm served as co-lead counsel and achieved a settlement
consisting of cash and warrants valued at $7.5 million, In re Equitec Rollup Litigation, Master
File No. C-90-2064 (N.D. Cal); Laurence v. Brewer, No. 97-15464 (Del. Ch. Ct.), where the firm
served as co-lead counsel (challenging a tender offer by general partners for publicly traded
master limited partnership, and obtaining settlement with establishment of dividend payments to
limited partners); LLOV Partners v. INCO Limited, No. 00-4999 (NHP) (D.N.J.) (challenging
tender offer by parent company for tracking stock of subsidiary); and Rosenblum v. Equis
Financial Group, No. 98-8030 (S.D. Fla.) (class and derivative settlements on behalf of three
subclasses).
Gilman and Pastor, LLP has also been actively involved in numerous other class actions arising
under the federal securities laws, including In re Painewebber Inc. Limited Partnership
Litigation, No. 94-CV-8547 (S.D.N.Y.); In re The One Bancorp Securities Litigation, No. 890315-P (D. Me.); In re VMS Securities Litigation, No. 89C 9448 (N.D. Ill.); In re Shearson
Union Square Associates Securities Litigation, (Del. Ch. Ct.); In re Software Publishing
Securities Litigation, C-93-20246 (N.D. Cal.); In re Prudential-Bache Energy Income
Partnerships Litigation, MDL No. 888 (E.D. LA); In Re: T2 Medical Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
92-CIV-1564 (N.D. Ga.); In re Interneuron Pharmaceuticals Securities Litigation; 97-12254 (D.
Mass.); In re UDC Homes Securities Litigation, 95-08941 (Maricopa County, AZ Superior Ct.);
and In re Towers Financial Securities Litigation, 93-0810 (S.D.N.Y.).
ATTORNEYS
KENNETH GILMAN is a graduate of Suffolk University Law School (J.D., 1979) and Boston
University (B.A.,1976). Mr. Gilman is a member of the bars of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, the State of Florida, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. He is a member of the Massachusetts
Bar Association, the Florida Bar and the American Bar Association. Mr. Gilman has served, and
currently serves as lead or co-counsel in various types of complex litigation, including cases in
the areas of antitrust, consumer protection, insurance, dangerous and defective products,
environmental law, personal injury and securities fraud.
Representative cases which have produced significant legal developments, include: Sebago, Inc.,
et. al. v. Beazer East, Inc., et. al., No. 96-10069- Wolf (D. Mass.) (Nationwide Class Settlements
with two manufacturers of phenolic insulation with a value in excess of $240 million; 18
F.Supp.2d 70 (D.Mass. 1998); Coleman, et. al. v. GAF Building Materials Corporation, No. CV96-0954-Galanos (Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama) (Nationwide class of persons who
owned properties with GAF defective roofing shingles with settlement value in excess of $75
million); In re: Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Inner-Seal OSB Trade Practices Litigation; Ciardi
v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd, et. al.,(Civil Action No. 99-03244, Middlesex Superior Court
Department Mass.), (a case that created new law in Massachusetts conferring standing upon
indirect purchasers for claims of price-fixing or other anti-competitive conduct. Settlement funds
obtained of over $22.5 million); Michaels v. Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company,
Index No. 5318-95 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Albany County) 1997 N.Y. misc. LEXIS 171 (1996); Agnes v.
Exhibit I
{00020285.DOC ; 1}
Page 22 of 28
#:3849
The Enstar Group, Inc., et. al., 90-C-1204-N (M.D. Alabama)(Settlement obtained of over $23
million); In re Hallwod Energy Partners L.P. Securities Litigation, 90-Civ-1555-JFK
(S.D.N.Y.)(In which a $9.1 million settlement was obtained after five years of intensive litigation
arising out of a complex oil and gas merger; Sullivan, et. al. v. Shearson California Radison
Plaza Partners Limited Partnership, et. al., No. 89-5472 (C.D.Cal.)(Securities fraud action
resulting in settlement in excess of $11 million); and Alert Income Partners Securities Litigation,
No. 92-2-9150(D.Colo.)(Securities fraud action resulting in settlement valued at $60 million).
Mr. Gilman was previously associated with Gilman, McLaughlin and Hanrahan in Boston,
Massachusetts and with the firm of Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick and Hoehl in Miami,
Florida. In 1985, Mr. Gilman was appointed by the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida as the Equity Receiver in the Intercontinental Commodities litigation. During
the period from 1980 through 1984, he participated as counsel to the Equity Receiver in the
Lloyd Carr and Company commodities fraud litigation. In that capacity, he prosecuted complex
litigation in Federal and state courts in Massachusetts and Florida, resulting in significant
recoveries for defrauded investors. Also as part of this litigation, Mr. Gilman acted as special
counsel for the Department of Justice.
DAVID PASTOR is a 1979 graduate of Boston University School of Law and a 1976 graduate of
Haverford College. During law school, Mr. Pastor clerked for two Wisconsin state court judges.
Mr. Pastor is a member of the bar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He is
a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association, the American Bar Association and the
Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Mr. Pastor has served, and currently serves as class
counsel in numerous class actions in various state and federal courts and has substantial
experience in various types of complex class action litigation, including cases involving
securities fraud and market manipulation, privacy rights, antitrust misconduct, consumer
protection claims and defective products. Certain of Mr. Pastor's cases have produced significant
legal developments, including In re Blech Securities Litigation, 961 F. Supp. 569 (S.D.N.Y.
1997) and 2002 WL 31356498 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2002)(liability of a clearing broker as a
primary violator for a scheme initiated by one of the clearing broker's correspondent brokerdealers) and Weld v. Glaxo Wellcome, Inc., 434 Mass. 81, 746 N.E.2d 522 (2001)(certification
of class action against several defendants engaged in parallel conduct where certain defendants
had no contact with the plaintiff and engaged in no conduct which directly affected the plaintiff).
JOHN C. MARTLAND is a 1978 graduate of Suffolk University Law School (J.D.) and received
a Bachelor of Arts degree from Colby College in 1972. Mr. Martland was previously associated
with the Law Offices of Harold Brown in Boston, Massachusetts, where he was the senior trial
attorney and with the firm of Ring and Rudnick, also located in Boston. Mr. Martland has had
experience in a wide variety of complex civil litigation and been trial counsel in complex civil
actions in state and federal courts throughout the United States. He has served as counsel in
complex business litigation in state courts in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine. He has
represented franchisees in arbitration proceedings before the American Arbitration Association
in Massachusetts, North Carolina, Illinois and New Jersey. He is a member of the bar of the
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the
United States of America. He is a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association and theExhibit I
{00020285.DOC ; 1}
Page 23 of 28
#:3850
American Bar Association and is a member of the ABA Antitrust Section. Mr. Martland was a
speaker at the 1998 Annual Forum on Franchising of the American Bar Association, where he
delivered a paper entitled "Mediation: An In-Depth Analysis of the Process and the Techniques the Franchisee Perspective" and has been a frequent speaker at the annual conventions of the
American Franchisee Association and the American Association of Franchisees and Dealers on
franchise law topics.
DOUGLAS M. BROOKS is a 1982 graduate of Suffolk University Law School (J.D.) and
received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Northwestern University in 1979. He was a Note Editor
for the Suffolk University Transnational Law Journal in 1981-1982. Mr. Brooks was previously
associated with the Law Offices of Harold Brown in Boston, Massachusetts. Mr. Brooks has
litigated a wide variety of civil cases, including matters involving franchising, dealer and
distribution, as well as securities actions. He is a member of the bar of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit. He is a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association and a
member of the Forum on Franchising and Litigation Section of the American Bar Association.
Mr. Brooks was a speaker at the 1995 Annual Forum on Franchising of the American Bar
Association, where he delivered a paper entitled "Survey Evidence - Use of Collected Data in
Encroachment Cases" and has been a frequent speaker at the annual conventions of the American
Association of Franchisees and Dealers and the American Franchisee Association. Significant
trials and appeals handled by Mr. Brooks include NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Institute, 364 F.3d 471
(2nd Cir.), cert. den. 543 U.S. 1000 (2004) (affirming denial of preliminary injunction against
non-profit anti-cult organization in lawsuit alleging Copyright and Lanham Act violations; Mr.
Brooks is representing the defendant pro bono); Wolinetz v. Berkshire Life Insurance Co., 361
F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2004) (reversing summary judgment in vanishing premium case based on
statute of limitations); In re: America Online, Inc., 168 F.Supp.2d 1359 (S.D.Fla. 2001) (denying
summary judgment); Scheck v. Burger King Corp., 756 F.Supp. 543 (S.D.Fla. 1991) (denying
summary judgment in franchise encroachment litigation), further opinion, 798 F.Supp. 692
(S.D.Fla. 1992); Rhodes v. Consumers Buyline, Inc., 668 F.Supp. 368 (D.Mass. 1993) (denying
motion to compel arbitration in pyramid scheme case); Szymanski v. Boston Mutual Life Ins.
Co., 56 Mass.App. 367 (2002), rev. den., 438 Mass. 1106 (2003) (reversing summary judgment
in vanishing premium litigation); Oganesov v. GNC Franchising Inc., Bus. Franchise Guide
(CCH) 11,808 (Pa. Ct. Cmn. Pl., March 3, 2000) (awarding $700,000 judgment for franchisee
in encroachment litigation), affd, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) 12,163 (Pa.Super. 2001);
Richards v. Arteva Specialities S.A.R.L., 66 Mass.App. 726 (2006) (upholding adequacy of
statutory demand letter in antitrust indirect purchaser class action); Gentle Wind Project v.
Garvey, 2005 WL 40064 (D.Me., January 10, 2005) (Mr. Brooks obtained dismissal of
defamation claims against web site operator); Deimler v. Scheibeler (Pa.Ct.Comm.Pleas,
Dauphin Cty., Case No. 2003 CV 1405 CV (Mr. Brooks defended web site operator in
defamation case; case was settled on fourth day of jury trial with no money paid by Mr. Brooks
client).
{00020285.DOC ; 1}
Exhibit I
Page 24 of 28
#:3851
EXHIBIT C
Exhibit I
Page 25 of 28
#:3852
EXHIBIT C
Minton, et al. v.Herbalife International, Inc., et al
Gilman and Pastor LLP - Current Lodestar
Inception through September 24, 2009
Timekeepers
Total Hours
Current Rates
Current Lodestar
Partners
Brooks, D.M..
1280.50
$500.00
$640,250.00
35.75
$100.00
$3,575.00
Paralegals
Potkay, R
TOTALS
{00020278.DOC ; 1}
643,825.00
Exhibit I
Page 26 of 28
#:3853
EXHIBIT D
Exhibit I
Page 27 of 28
#:3854
EXHIBIT D
Minton, et al. v. Herbalife International, Inc., et al
Gilman and Pastor, LLP Expenses
Inception through September 24, 2009
Category
Amount
Computer Research and Electronic Document Retrieval

(Westlaw, Lexis File and Serve, Online Research)
$ 1,481.92
Court Reporter
$ 1,474.00
Expert/Consultants
$ 5,700.00
Photocopying
48.25
Telephone and Facsimile
234.49
Messengers/Service of Process
28.35
Postage, Overnight Delivery (FedEx, UPS)
135.47
Travel/Lodging and Travel Related Expenses
$ 5,993.31__
TOTAL:
{00020277.DOC ; 1}
$15,095.79
Exhibit I
Page 28 of 28

#:3855
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13

citizen, etal.,
PLAINTIFF,
14
15
16
17
18

DECLARATION OF ERIC ROBIN
RE: NOTICE PROCEDURES
vs.
AMERICA, INC., a Nevada
Corporation, etal.,

Time: 1:30 p.m.
Courtroom: 14
19
DEFENDANTS.
20
21
22
I, ERIC ROBIN, declare:

1.
23
I am a Consultant at Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC ("KCC"), located at
24
75 Rowland Way, Suite 250, Novato, California. I am over 21 years of age and am not a
25
party to this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called
26
as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto.

2.
27
28
The purpose of this declaration is to provide the Parties and the Court with a
summary and the results of the work performed by KCC related to the Notice Procedures
3151448.1

#:3856
for the Bostick v. Herbalife International of America, Inc. et al. settlement following the
Preliminary Approval.
3.
KCC was retained by the parties to serve as the Settlement Administrator to,
among other tasks, email the Notice of Class Action Settlement (the Email Notice) in
English and Spanish; mail the Postcard Notice in English and Spanish; make the Full
Notice and Claim Form available to Settlement Class Members (as defined in section
1.14 of the Stipulation of Settlement) in English and Spanish; receive and process Claim
Forms, Exclusions and Objections, and other Settlement Class Member inquiries; and
establish and maintain a settlement website and perform other duties as specified in the
10
Settlement Agreement preliminarily approved by this Court on December 2, 2014.
11
Copies of the Email Notice, Postcard Notice, Full Notice, and Claim Form are attached
12
hereto as Exhibits A through D, respectively.

4.
13
Mailed Notice and Emailed Notice. On December 12, 2014, KCC received
14
from Defendant Herbalife International of America, Inc. a computerized list of 1,533,339
15
names, postal addresses, and 1,051,342 associated valid email addresses, characterized as
16
the list of Settlement Class Members known to Defendants. The Settlement Class
17
Member List included the known contact information for persons who, during the period
18
from April 1, 2009 through September 30, 2013, had a valid agreement of distributorship
19
or membership with Herbalife.

5.
20
On or before December 19, 2014, KCC caused the addresses in the
21
Settlement Class Member List to be updated using the National Change of Address
22
system, which updates addresses for all people who had moved during the previous four
23
years and filed a change of address with the U.S. Postal Service. New addresses were
24
found for 188,158 Settlement Class Members. The Settlement Class Member List was
25
updated with these new addresses.

6.
26
Of the 1,533,339 records on the Settlement Class Member List, 1,051,342
27
had an e-mail address, 481,883 had only postal mailing addresses, and 114 had
28
incomplete or missing mailing or emailing addresses.
3151448.1

#:3857
7.
On December 30, 2014, KCC mailed 481,883 Postcard Notices by First
Class postage at the U.S. Post Office in Hackensack, New Jersey to the Settlement Class
Members for whom only postal mailing addresses were known.

8.
On December 30, 2014, KCC emailed the Email Notice to each of the
1,051,342 email addresses on the Settlement Class Member List. This e-mail notice
provided information regarding the settlement, including a link to the Settlement
Website, located at www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com, where Settlement Class
Members could submit an online Claim Form. Three attempts were made to deliver the
Email Notice if it was initially undeliverable. As of January 8, 2015, KCCs e-mail
10
server registered 736,556 emails (70.06%) as having been successfully delivered and
11
314,786 (29.94%) as undeliverable.

9.
12
13
On January 9, 2015, KCC mailed the Postcard Notice to the 314,711 people
whose Email Notice was undeliverable and for whom KCC had a valid physical address.
10.
14
As of April 8, 2015, KCC has received a total of 1,396 Postcard Notices
15
returned by the U.S. Postal Service with forwarding addresses. KCC caused the
16
Settlement Class Member List to be updated with the new addresses and Notice Packages
17
to be re-mailed to the Settlement Class Members at each of these new addresses. As of
18
April 8, 2015, KCC has received a 121,963 Postcard Notices returned by the U.S. Postal
19
Service without forwarding addresses. To date, KCC has conducted address searches
20
using credit and other public source databases to attempt to locate new addresses for each
21
of these Settlement Class Members. As of April 8, 2015, these searches have resulted in
22
71,294 updated addresses. KCC promptly re-mailed Postcard Notices to the updated
23
addresses.
24
11.
25
The combined email and postcard individual notice efforts are estimated to
have reached approximately 92.91% of Settlement Class Members.

12.
26
Interactive Voice Response. On December 29, 2014, KCC caused an
27
Interactive Voice Response (the IVR) system to be established (877-651-4185) to
28
provide information about the Settlement and to record requests for Notice Packets. As
3151448.1

#:3858
of April 8, 2015, 21,291 calls have been received by the IVR. Of these callers, 3,793
requested either an English or Spanish Notice Packet. All Notice Packet requests have
been fulfilled.
13.
Website. On December 29, 2014, KCC also established a website
(www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com) dedicated to this Settlement to provide
additional information to the Settlement Class Members and to answer frequently asked
questions. Visitors to the website can download the (1) English or Spanish Notice; (2)
English or Spanish Claim Form; (3) Settlement Agreement; and (4) Order Preliminarily
Approving Settlement. Visitors can also submit claims online. The web address was set
10
forth in the Email Notice, Postcard Notice, Full Notice and Claim Form. As of April 8,
11
2015, the website has received 42,728 visits.

14.
12
Requests for Exclusion. As of the date of this declaration, KCC has
13
received 687 Requests for Exclusion. A list of the individuals requesting exclusion is
14
attached hereto as Exhibit E.

15.
15
Objections to the Settlement. As of the date of this declaration, KCC has
16
received two substantive Objections to the Settlement that were both withdrawn by the
17
objecting party. On April 8, 2015, Defense Counsel informed KCC of an additional 18
18
substantive Objections to the Settlement. A list of the individuals objecting is attached
19
hereto as Exhibit F. Of the 18 objectors, the following three also filed a claim.
16.
20
Susana Perez filed a Business Opportunity claim. She claimed that her
21
Estimated Total Loss was $30,000.00. Herbalifes records show that Ms. Perez paid
22
$103,853.39 to Herbalife for products, and, as a result, she will receive an award of
23
$30,000.
17.
24
Eric Rodensky filed a Business Opportunity claim. He claimed that his
25
Estimated Total Loss was $3,000.00. Herbalifes records show that Mr. Rodensky paid
26
$3,977.73 to Herbalife for products, and, assuming a payout of 75%, he will receive an
27
award of $2,983.30.
28
3151448.1

#:3859
18.
Julio Ulloa filed a Business Opportunity claim. He claimed that his
Estimated Total Loss was $20,000.00. Herbalifes records show that Mr. Ulloa paid
$18,792.37 to Herbalife for products, and, assuming a payout of 75%, he will receive an
award of $14,094.29.
19.
5
6
Claim Forms. As of the date of this declaration, 7,238 Claim Forms have
been filed by Settlement Class Members.

20.
Late Filed Claim Forms. On April 9, 2014, the parties agreed to reactivate
the website until April 30, 2015 to allow the late claimants to file a claim. The website
will require claimants to enter their ClaimID in order to file a claim. The following
10
language was added to the end of the claim filing component: Because this claim has
11
been filed after the claims period, the Parties and the Settlement Administrator reserve
12
the right to audit and reject any claim that has been submitted after the claim submission
13
deadline. As of April 9, 2014, only claims filed via the website will be considered. The
14
IVR has also been modified to include the following language: Since the claim
15
submission deadline was February 3rd and has now passed, we are no longer mailing
16
paper copies of the Notice and Claim form to claimants. However, you can still make a
17
claim on the website at www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com. If you do not have
18
access to the internet, so that your claim is processed timely, we recommend using either
19
public access to the internet at a public library or the internet of a friend or relative. If
20
you are still unable to access the internet, please contact Plaintiffs Counsel at (385) 202-
21
4913 for further guidance.

21.
22
Business Opportunity Claims. There are 114 claimants who will be
23
receiving payments greater than $10,000.00. There are 324 claims who will be receiving
24
payments greater than $5,000.00. There are 1,629 claims who will be receiving
25
payments greater than $1,000.00. The average business opportunity award, assuming a
26
payout of 75%, is $1,120.09. The largest business opportunity award, assuming a payout
27
of 75%, is $98,588.36. Every claimant who could not demonstrate a loss and every
28
claimant who purchased less than $750 of products from Herbalife during the Class
3151448.1

#:3860
Period will receive $20.00. Every claimant who purchased more than $750 in products
from Herbalife will receive the lesser of the full amount of the Estimated Total Loss
claimed or 75% of the amount paid to Herbalife for products. As of the date of this
declaration, assuming a payout of 75%, the aggregate amount of business opportunity
awards is $7,299,619.74.
22.
Product Return Payments. Class Members who filed Product Return
claims were asked to provide the Actual Purchase Price of the product being claimed if
known or, alternatively, the Estimated Purchase Price of the product being claimed.
Some Class Members provided both amounts with their claim. In such instances, KCC
10
took the lesser of these two values. As of the date of the declaration, the aggregate
11
amount claimed is $902,311.92.

23.
12
Notice to Claimants of Business Opportunity Claim Award and/or
13
Product Return Payment. On March 3, 2015 KCC provided notice to all claimants of
14
their business opportunity claim award and/or product return payments and directed any
15
Claimant who disputed the reduction of his or her claim to provide e-mail or fax copies of
16
purchase orders, invoices, copies of cancelled checks or credit card statements evidencing
17
these purchases directly from Herbalife to counsel for Plaintiffs.
18
19
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
20
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that this declaration was
21
executed this 13th day of April 2015 at Novato, California.
22
23
24
____________________________________
25
Eric Robin
26
27
28
3151448.1

#:3861
Exhibit A

#:3862
Claim #: ClaimID
To:
First1 Last1
From: Bostick v. Herbalife Claims Administrator
Subject: Herbalife Settlement
If you were an Herbalife Distributor or Member at Any Time Between April 1, 2009
and December 2, 2014, You Could Get Benefits from a Class Action Settlement.
Records show that you are a current or former Herbalife distributor. A lawsuit was filed against
Herbalife International of America, Inc.; Herbalife International, Inc.; and Herbalife, Ltd.
(collectively, Herbalife) over its business model, alleging the Herbalife operates a pyramid
scheme. Herbalife denies that it did anything wrong. The Settlement includes $15 million for
cash awards, $2.5 million for product returns, and a legal commitment from Herbalife that it
will change or preserve recent changes to certain business practices. Go to
www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com for more information and to file a claim online.
Whos Included? You are in included in the Settlement if at any time between April 1, 2009,
and December 2, 2014 you had a valid agreement of distributorship or membership
with Herbalife.
What Can You Get? You may be eligible to return unused and unopened Herbalife products
(excluding International Business Packs and Mini-International Business Packs) purchased more
than one year prior to the deadline for submitting Claim Forms and may receive in exchange, the
actual amount you paid for each returned product. Even if you are unable to return products,
you may be eligible to receive a cash payment for losses on Herbalife product purchases incurred
in pursuing the Herbalife business opportunity.
How to Get Benefits? You must submit a Claim Form to get benefits. The Claim Form is
available at www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com or by calling 1-877-651-4185. You can
submit a Claim Form online or by mail. The deadline to submit a Claim Form is
February 3, 2015.
Your Other Rights. If you do nothing, your rights will be affected. If you do not want to be
legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself from the Settlement. The deadline to
exclude yourself is March 24, 2015. If you do not exclude yourself you will be unable to sue
Herbalife for any claim relating to the lawsuit. If you stay in the Settlement, you may object to it
by March 24, 2015. The Court will hold a hearing on May 11, 2015, to consider whether to
approve the Settlement and award attorneys fees. The Plaintiffs attorneys anticipate seeking
attorneys fees of 30% of the total Settlement value in an amount not to exceed $5,250,000 and
costs of approximately $200,000 for pursuing this case. Any awarded attorneys fees and costs
will be paid from the Cash Settlement Fund. You can appear at the hearing, but you dont have
to. You can hire your own attorney at your own expenses to appear or speak for you at
the hearing.
For more information or a Claim Form:
1-877-651-4185
www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com
HIBNTE1

#:3863
Reclamacin #: ClaimID
Para:
First1 Last1
De:
Administrador de reclamaciones de Bostick v. Herbalife
Asunto:
Conciliacin de Herbalife
Si usted fue distribuidor o miembro de Herbalife en cualquier
momento comprendido entre el 1 de abril de 2009, y 2 de diciembre de 2014,
puede obtener beneficios de una Conciliacin de demanda colectiva.
Los registros muestran que usted es o fue distribuidor de Herbalife. Se interpuso una demanda
contra Herbalife International of America, Inc.; Herbalife International, Inc.; y Herbalife, Ltd.
(en conjunto, Herbalife) sobre su modelo comercial, en la que se alega que Herbalife opera con
base en un esquema piramidal. Herbalife niega que haya obrado de mala forma. La Conciliacin
incluye 15 millones USD por concepto de indemnizaciones en efectivo, 2,5 millones USD por
devoluciones de productos y un compromiso legal asumido por Herbalife de que cambiar o
mantendr
los
cambios
recientes
a
ciertas
prcticas
comerciales.
Visite
www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com para obtener ms informacin y registrar una
reclamacin en lnea.
Quin est incluido? Usted est incluido en la Conciliacin si en algn momento comprendido
entre el 1 de abril de 2009 y el 2 de diciembre de 2014 usted tuvo un acuerdo vlido de
distribucin o membreca con Herbalife.
Qu puede obtener? Usted puede ser elegible para devolver productos Herbalife no usados ni
abiertos (excluidos los Paquetes Comerciales Internacionales [International Business Packs] y los
Minipaquetes Comerciales Internacionales [Mini-International Business Packs]) comprados con
ms de un ao de antelacin a la fecha lmite de presentacin de formularios de reclamacin y
recibir en intercambio, el monto real que usted pag para cada producto devuelto. Incluso si
usted no est en capacidad de devolver los productos, puede ser elegible para recibir un pago en
efectivo por las prdidas sobre las compras de productos Herbalife asumidas en la dedicacin a
la oportunidad de negocio de Herbalife.
Cmo obtener beneficios? Debe enviar un formulario de reclamacin para obtener beneficios.
Los formularios de reclamacin estn disponibles en www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com
o puede obtenerlos llamando al 1-877-651-4185. Puede enviar su formulario de reclamacin por
Internet o por correo postal. La fecha lmite para presentar su formulario de reclamacin es el
3 de febrero 2015.
Sus otros derechos. Incluso si elige no hacer nada, sus derechos legales se vern alterados. Si no
desea quedar vinculado legalmente por esta Conciliacin, debe excluirse de la misma. La fecha
lmite para excluirse es el 24 de marzo de 2015. Si no se excluye, no podr demandar a
Herbalife por cualquier reclamacin relacionada con el litigio. Si permanece en la Conciliacin,
podr presentar objeciones a la misma a ms tardar el 24 de marzo de 2015. El Tribunal llevar
a cabo una audiencia el 11 de mayo de 2015, para considerar si aprueba la Conciliacin y
adjudica honorarios de abogados. Los abogados de los Demandantes prevn solicitar honorarios
de abogados equivalentes a un 30 % del valor de conciliacin total por un monto que no exceda
los 5.250.000 USD y costas de aproximadamente 200.000 USD por hacerse cargo de este caso.
Todos los honorarios y costos de abogados que sean aprobados sern pagados a partir del Fondo
de conciliacin en efectivo. Usted puede comparecer en la audiencia, pero no est obligado a
hacerlo. Tambin puede contratar su propio abogado, por su cuenta, para comparecer o hablar en
su nombre en la audiencia.
Si desea ms informacin o un formulario de reclamacin:
1-877-651-4185
HIBNES1

#:3864
Exhibit B
Case 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-SH
130-5 Filed 04/13/15 Page 11 of 56 Page ID
Bostick v. Herbalife ClaimsDocument
Administrator
#:3865
P.O. Box 43323
Providence, RI 02940-3323
Barcode
Postal Service: Please do not mark barcode
Claim#: HIB-ClaimID - MailRec
First1 Last1
CO
Addr2
Addr1
City, St Zip
Country
HIB
COURT-ORDERED
LEGAL
NOTICE
Case 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-SH Document
130-5
Filed
04/13/15 Page 12 of 56 Page ID
If you were an Herbalife Distributor #:3866
or Member at Any Time Between April 1, 2009
Records show that you are a current or former Herbalife distributor. A lawsuit was filed against Herbalife International of America,
Inc.; Herbalife International, Inc.; and Herbalife, Ltd. (collectively, Herbalife) over its business model, alleging the Herbalife
operates a pyramid scheme. Herbalife denies that it did anything wrong. The Settlement includes $15 million for cash awards,
$2.5 million for product returns, and a legal commitment from Herbalife that it will change or preserve recent changes to certain
business practices. Go to www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com for more information and to file a claim online.
WHOS INCLUDED?
You are in included in the Settlement if at any time between April 1, 2009, and December 2, 2014 you had a valid agreement of
distributorship or membership with Herbalife.
WHAT CAN YOU GET?
You may be eligible to return unused and unopened Herbalife products (excluding International Business Packs and MiniInternational Business Packs) purchased one year prior to February 3, 2015 and may receive in exchange, the actual amount you
paid for each returned product. Even if you are unable to return products, you may be eligible to receive a cash payment for losses
on Herbalife product purchases incurred in pursuing the Herbalife business opportunity.
HOW TO GET BENEFITS?
You must submit a Claim Form to get benefits. The Claim Form is available at www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com or by
calling 1-877-651-4185. You can submit a Claim Form online or by mail. The deadline to submit a Claim Form is February 3, 2015.
YOUR OTHER RIGHTS
If you do nothing, your rights will be affected. If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself
from the Settlement. The deadline to exclude yourself is March 24, 2015. If you do not exclude yourself you will be unable to sue
Herbalife for any claim relating to the lawsuit. If you stay in the Settlement, you may object to it by March 24, 2015. The Court
will hold a hearing on May 11, 2015, to consider whether to approve the Settlement and award attorneys fees. The Plaintiffs
attorneys anticipate seeking attorneys fees of 30% of the total Settlement value in an amount not to exceed $5,250,000 and costs of
approximately $200,000 for pursuing this case. Any awarded attorneys fees and costs will be paid from the Cash Settlement Fund.
You can appear at the hearing, but you dont have to. You can hire your own attorney at your own expenses to appear or speak for
you at the hearing.
FOR MORE INFORMATION OR A CLAIM FORM: 1-877-651-4185 WWW.HERBALIFECLASSACTIONSETTLEMENT.COM
LEGAL130-5
ORDENADA Filed
POR UN TRIBUNAL
Case 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-SHNOTIFICACIN
Document
04/13/15 Page 13 of 56 Page ID
Si usted fue distribuidor o miembro de Herbalife
en cualquier momento comprendido entre el
#:3867
1 de abril de 2009 y el 2 de diciembre de 2014, puede obtener beneficios de una Conciliacin de demanda colectiva.
Los registros muestran que usted es o fue distribuidor de Herbalife. Se interpuso una demanda contra Herbalife International of America, Inc.;
Herbalife International, Inc.; y Herbalife, Ltd. (en conjunto, Herbalife) sobre su modelo comercial, en la que se alega que Herbalife opera con base en un
esquema piramidal. Herbalife niega que haya obrado de mala forma. La conciliacin incluye 15 millones USD por concepto de indemnizaciones en efectivo,
2,5 millones USD por devoluciones de productos y un compromiso legal asumido por Herbalife de que cambiar o mantendr los cambios recientes a ciertas
prcticas comerciales. Visite www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com para obtener ms informacin y registrar una reclamacin en lnea.
QUIN EST INCLUIDO?
Usted est incluido en la conciliacin si en cualquier momento comprendido entre el 1 de abril de 2009 y el 2 de diciembre de 2014 usted tuvo un
acuerdo de distribucin vlido o membreca vlida con Herbalife.
QU PUEDE OBTENER?
Usted puede ser elegible para devolver productos Herbalife no usados ni abiertos (excluidos los Paquetes Comerciales Internacionales [International
Business Packs] y los Minipaquetes Comerciales Internacionales [Mini-International Business Packs]) comprados con ms de un ao de antelacin a la
fecha lmite de presentacin de formularios de reclamacin y recibir en intercambio, el monto real que usted pag para cada producto devuelto. Incluso
si usted no est en capacidad de devolver los productos, puede ser elegible para recibir un pago en efectivo por las prdidas sobre las compras de
productos Herbalife asumidas en la dedicacin a la oportunidad de negocio de Herbalife.
CMO OBTENER BENEFICIOS?
Debe enviar un formulario de reclamacin para obtener beneficios. Los formularios de reclamacin estn disponibles en
www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com o puede obtenerlos llamando al 1-877-651-4185. Puede enviar su formulario de reclamacin por Internet
o por correo postal. La fecha lmite para presentar su formulario de reclamacin es el 3 de febrero 2015.
SUS OTROS DERECHOS
Incluso si no hace nada, sus derechos legales se vern alterados. Si no desea quedar vinculado legalmente por esta conciliacin, debe excluirse de la
misma. La fecha lmite para excluirse es el 24 de marzo 2015. Si no se excluye, no podr demandar a Herbalife por cualquier reclamacin relacionada
con el litigio. Si permanece en la conciliacin, podr presentar objeciones a la misma a ms tardar el 24 de marzo 2015. El Tribunal llevar a cabo una
audiencia el 11 de mayo 2015, para considerar si aprueba la conciliacin y adjudica los honorarios de los abogados. Los abogados de los Demandantes
prevn solicitar honorarios de abogados equivalentes a un 30 % del valor de conciliacin total por un monto que no exceda los 5.250.000 USD y costas
de aproximadamente 200.000 USD por hacerse cargo de este caso. Todos los honorarios y costos de abogados que sean aprobados sern pagados a
partir del Fondo de conciliacin en efectivo. Usted puede comparecer en la audiencia, pero no est obligado a hacerlo. Tambin puede contratar su
propio abogado, por su cuenta, para comparecer o hablar en su nombre en la audiencia.
SI DESEA MS INFORMACIN O UN FORMULARIO DE RECLAMACIN: 1-877-651-4185
WWW.HERBALIFECLASSACTIONSETTLEMENT.COM

#:3868
Exhibit C

#:3869
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
If you were an Herbalife Distributor or Member at Any Time Between April 1, 2009,
Para una Notificatin en Espaol, llamar 1-877-651-4185 o visitar www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com.
A federal court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
A Settlement has been reached with Herbalife International of America, Inc.; Herbalife International, Inc.;
and Herbalife Ltd. (collectively, Herbalife) regarding its business practices.
Those included in the Settlement may be eligible to receive a payment. Herbalife has also agreed to change
or preserve recent changes to its business practices.
Your legal rights are affected even if you do nothing. Please read this Notice carefully.
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT
SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM
EXCLUDE YOURSELF
OBJECT
GO TO A HEARING
DO NOTHING
This is the only way to get a payment. This option will result in you giving
up your rights to sue Herbalife about the legal claims in this lawsuit.
Get no payment. This is the only option that allows you to ever be part of
any other lawsuit against Herbalife about the legal claims in this case.
Write to the Court about why you do not like the Settlement.
Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement.
Get no payment. Give up your rights to sue Herbalife about the claims
in this lawsuit.
QUESTIONS? CALL 1-877-651-4185 TOLL FREE, OR VISIT WWW.HERBALIFECLASSACTIONSETTLEMENT.COM

PARA UNA NOTIFICACIN EN ESPAOL, LLAME O VISITE NUESTRO WEBSITE
HIBNTW1

#:3870
WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS

Page
BASIC INFORMATION...................................................................................................................................................... 3
1. Why did I get this Notice package? ................................................................................................................................... 3
2. What is this lawsuit about? ................................................................................................................................................ 3
3. Why is this a class action? ................................................................................................................................................. 3
4. Why is there a settlement? ................................................................................................................................................. 3
WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT? .................................................................................................................................... 3
5. How do I know if I am part of the settlement? .................................................................................................................. 3
6. Are there exceptions to being included? ............................................................................................................................ 3
7. Im still not sure if I am included....................................................................................................................................... 4
THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITSWHAT YOU GET ................................................................................................... 4
8. What does the settlement provide? .................................................................................................................................... 4
9. How much will my payment be? ....................................................................................................................................... 5
HOW YOU GET A PAYMENTSUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM ............................................................................ 5
10. How can I get a payment?................................................................................................................................................ 5
11. When would I get my payment? ...................................................................................................................................... 6
12. What am I giving up to get a payment and stay in the Settlement Class? ....................................................................... 7
EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT .............................................................................................. 7
13. How do I get out of the settlement? ................................................................................................................................. 7
14. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue Herbalife for the same thing later? ........................................................................ 7
15. If I exclude myself, can I get money from this settlement? ............................................................................................. 7
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU......................................................................................................................... 7
16. Do I have a lawyer in this case?....................................................................................................................................... 7
17. How will the lawyers be paid? ......................................................................................................................................... 7
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 7
18. How do I tell the Court that I dont like the settlement?.................................................................................................. 7
19. What is the difference between objecting and excluding?............................................................................................... 8
THE COURTS FAIRNESS HEARING ............................................................................................................................ 8
20. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement? ................................................................... 8
21. Do I have to come to the hearing? ................................................................................................................................... 8
22. May I speak at the hearing? ............................................................................................................................................. 8
IF YOU DO NOTHING ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
23. What happens if I do nothing at all? ................................................................................................................................ 8
GETTING MORE INFORMATION.................................................................................................................................. 8
24. Are there more details about the settlement? ................................................................................................................... 8
25. How do I get more information?...................................................................................................................................... 8
-2-

#:3871
BASIC INFORMATION
1. Why did I get this notice package?

This Notice is being sent to those individuals who may have had a valid agreement of distributorship or membership with
Herbalife between April 1, 2009 and December 2, 2014.
The Court sent you this Notice because you have a right to know about a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit,
and about all of your options, before the Court decides whether to approve the settlement. If the Court approves it, and
after objections and appeals are resolved, an administrator appointed by the Court (the Claims Administrator) will make
the payments that the settlement allows. You will be informed of the progress of the settlement.
This package explains the lawsuit, the settlement, your legal rights, what benefits are available, who is eligible for them,
and how to get them.
The Court in charge of the case is the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and the case is
known as Dana Bostick, et al. v. Herbalife International of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-RZ.
Judge Beverly Reid OConnell is overseeing this class action. The people who sued are called Plaintiffs. The people
who were sued, Herbalife International of America, Inc.; Herbalife International, Inc.; and Herbalife Ltd. (collectively,
Herbalife), are the Defendants.
2. What is this lawsuit about?
The lawsuit claimed that Herbalife operated a pyramid scheme contrary to California state law. The lawsuit also claims
that Herbalifes promotional materials made misleading claims regarding certain business opportunities. Herbalife denies
that it did anything wrong and vigorously defended the litigation.
3. Why is this a class action?
In a class action, one or more people called Class Representatives (in this case Dana Bostick, Anita Vasko, Judi Trotter,
Beverly Molnar, and Chester Cote), sue on behalf of people who have similar claims. All these people are a Class or Class
Members. One court resolves the issues for all Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the Class.
4. Why is there a settlement?
The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs or Herbalife. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. That way, both
sides avoid the cost of a trial, and the people affected will get compensation. Herbalife denies all legal claims in this case.
The Class Representatives and their attorneys think that the settlement is best for all Class Members.
WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT?

To see if you will get money from this settlement, you must first be a Class Member.
5. How do I know if I am part of the settlement?
The Class Members are described in the Stipulation of Settlement. In general, all persons who, during the period from
April 1, 2009 through December 2, 2014, had a valid agreement of distributorship or membership with Herbalife are
included in the class.
6. Are there exceptions to being included?
You are not a Class Member if you were or are either an employee of Herbalife or a family member of an employee of
Herbalife. You are not a Class Member if you were or are a member of the Herbalife Presidents Team, Founders Circle,
Chairmans Club, Millionaire Team, or GET Team.
You are not a Class Member entitled to receive any payment if you agreed to be subject to the arbitration provisions found
in the Arbitration Agreement for Disputes Between Members and Herbalife contained in the Member Application
Agreement effective as of September 2013. You may still, however, be a Class Member affected by the non-monetary
elements of the settlement even if you signed an Arbitration Agreement.
7. Im still not sure if I am included.
If you are still not sure whether you are included, you can ask for free help by contacting Plaintiffs Counsel at:
(385) 202-4913. You can also call 1-877-651-4185 or visit www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com for more
information. Or you can fill out and return the Claim Form described on page 5, in question 10, to see if you qualify.
-3-

#:3872
THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITSWHAT YOU GET
8. What does the settlement provide?

Herbalife has agreed to establish two Settlement Funds for current and former members and distributors:
Cash Settlement Fund: $15 million in cash will be used to pay Herbalife members or distributors who file valid
claims. The fund will also be used to pay attorneys fees and costs (See Question 17) as well as the costs to
administer the settlement.
Product Return Fund: Up to $2.5 million will be available to pay members or distributors who file valid claims
for the return of unused and unopened products (excluding International Business Packs and Mini-International
Business Packs). An additional $2.5 million from the Cash Settlement Fund described above may be used to pay
for additional product returns if valid claims exceed the amount of the Product Return Fund.
Herbalife has also agreed to make or continue several changes to its corporate policies and procedures for no less than
three years from the date the Court gives final approval of this settlement. Those corporate policies are listed below:
1.
Herbalife shall not simultaneously and separately charge its members a Packaging & Handling fee
(or similar fee) and an Order Shipping Charge (or similar fee).
2.
Herbalife shall not define Distributor in its Glossary of Terms as Everyone who purchases an
Official Herbalife Member Pack (HMP) and submits to Herbalife a valid and complete Membership
Application and whose Application has been accepted by Herbalife.
3.
Herbalife shall continue to discourage members from incurring debt to pursue the Herbalife business opportunity.
4.
Herbalife shall continue to pay shipping charges for the return of products to Herbalife in connection with
its inventory repurchase policies.
5.
Herbalife shall continue enforcement of its rules and maintain a member compliance department. Herbalife
shall also continue to revise and supplement its policies, procedures and member rules as deemed necessary
by Herbalife in the exercise of reasonable business judgment.
6.
Herbalife shall continue prohibiting members from selling leads to other members or purchasing leads from any source.
7.
Herbalife shall continue to prohibit members from requiring a person to buy product (other than a Mini or
Full Member Pack) as a condition to becoming an Herbalife member or distributor.
8.
Herbalife shall continue to require that before opening a Nutrition Club in a non-residential location, the Herbalife
member must have been a member for at least 90 days and receive mandatory Nutrition Club operator training.
9.
Herbalife shall include its Statement of Average Gross Compensation (SAGC) as part of its
member application.
10.
Herbalife shall require that new members acknowledge reviewing the SAGC when signing a new Herbalife
Membership Application and Agreement and shall continue to include and/or link to the SAGC with that Agreement.
11.
Herbalife shall continue disclosing in its SAGC the total number and percentage of all members who do not
receive any compensation payment directly from Herbalife.
12.
Herbalife shall clarify in its Sales & Marketing Plan that upon qualifying as a Supervisor, a member shall have
at least 12 months during which to requalify as a Supervisor.
13.
Herbalife shall amend the hardcopy Membership Agreement to define Compensation Statement as Statement
of Average Gross Compensation Paid by Herbalife, and include the following statement: I hereby represent,
warrant and agree that I am not relying upon and that I will not rely upon any other written or oral information or
representations about the financial results I might achieve. Herbalife may modify the Membership Agreement
provided that such modifications are not materially inconsistent with these amendments.
Notes: The attorneys fees and costs, settlement administration costs, and other relevant costs will be paid from the Cash
Settlement Fund. The remainder of the Cash Settlement Fund will be used to pay valid claims submitted by Class Members.
More details on the settlement are available in the Stipulation of Settlement, which is available at:

-4-

#:3873
9. How much will my payment be?
Your share of the settlement will depend on the number of valid Claim Forms that Class Members send in, the nature of
your claim, and the amount of attorneys fees and costs awarded by the Court.
Three types of monetary benefits will be available from the two Settlement Funds. Class Members could receive benefits
in the following ways:
Type 1: Product Return Award (Product Return Fund)
Class Members may submit claims to return unused and unopened products (excluding International Business Packs and
Mini-International Business Packs) purchased more than one year prior to February 3, 2015, the deadline for submitting
claims forms. Following this deadline, the Claims Administrator will post on the class action settlement website
www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com a notice of the return payment and at that point, you will have the ability to
return the products identified in your Claim Forms.
Notes: If the total product return amount exceeds the amount in the Product Return Fund, payments to the Class Members
will be reduced on a proportional basis so that all valid claims can be paid. Any shipping costs will be paid out of the
Product Return Fund. If you purchased Herbalife products within one year prior to February 3, 2015, you may be entitled
to a refund under Herbalifes Gold Standard Guarantees, which are administered directly by Herbalife and not part of
this Settlement.
Type 2: Business Opportunity Award (Cash Settlement Fund)
If you (a) joined Herbalife primarily to pursue a business opportunity and not primarily for personal and/or family
consumption of Herbalife products; (b) in total, lost money on Herbalife products pursuing the Herbalife business
opportunity; and (c) have never been a GET Team or higher-level member, then you may qualify for an award from the
Cash Settlement Fund based on your purchases of Qualified Products.
An Herbalife product is a Qualified Product, if it was (i) purchased for resale purposes; (ii) purchased from within the
U.S. and shipped to you at a location in the U.S.; (iii) not sold for at least the cost of purchase; (iv) not returned through
Herbalifes buyback program or Herbalifes satisfaction guarantee; and (v) not the subject of a claim for recovery from the
Product Fund that has been filed pursuant to this Settlement.
Pro Rata Award
If you paid Herbalife at least $750 to purchase Qualified Products during any Claims Year, you may qualify for a pro rata
award from the Cash Settlement Fund equal to the lesser of 100% of the estimated total loss from your sales of Qualified
Products or 50% of the price you paid for your aggregate Qualified Product. A Claims Year is a twelve month period
beginning and ending on the first day of the month in which you became an Herbalife member.
Notes: If claims exceed the amount available for Pro Rata Awards, payments to the Class Members will be reduced on a
proportional basis so that all valid claims can be paid.
Flat Rate Award
If you did not pay Herbalife at least $750 to purchase Qualified Products during a Claims Year (as defined above), you
may be entitled to a payment of $20 to be paid from the Cash Settlement Fund.
Notes: If claims exceed the amount available for Flat Rate Awards, payments to the Class Members will be reduced on a
proportional basis so that all valid claims can be paid.
Any amounts remaining in the Cash Settlement Fund after the payments specified in the Business Opportunity Award
shall be paid pursuant to the cy pres doctrine to the following charity, or such charity as the parties may agree upon and
the Court approves:
Consumer Federation of America
To the extent interest is earned on amounts held by the Claims Administrator prior to distribution as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement, it shall accrue and be payable to Herbalife.
HOW YOU GET A PAYMENT SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM

10. How can I get a payment?
To qualify for payment from the either the Cash Settlement Fund or Product Return Fund, you must send in a Claim Form. A
Claim Form may be obtained from the Claims Administrator from its website at www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com or by
telephone request by calling 1-877-651-4185. Read the instructions carefully, fill out the form(s) and sign and (if not filled out
online) mail the form(s) postmarked no later than February 3, 2015.
-5-

#:3874
Product Return Payments
To receive a payment under the Product Return Fund, in your Claim Form, you must identify the following:
Product Stock-Keeping Unit number (SKU).
Estimated purchase date of the products to be returned.
The actual amount paid for each product you intend to return.
If you are unable to provide the actual amount paid for the products you intend to return, you must certify
under penalty of perjury that you are unable to provide that information and then provide an estimated
purchase amount. Assuming all other information you provide is proper, the Claims Administrator will
then calculate the amount paid as the lesser of your estimated purchase amount or 50% of Herbalifes
Suggested Retail Price for the product on the purchase date.
To qualify for a payment from the Product Return Fund, after the Claims Administrator posts a notice of the return
payment on the Internet at www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com, you must return the product identified in your
Claim Form by following the directions on the website.
Cash Settlement Payments
To receive a payment under the Cash Settlement Fund, in your Claim Form, you must certify under penalty of perjury
the following:
You joined Herbalife primarily to pursue a business opportunity and not primarily to personally (or as a family)
consume Herbalifes product.
In total, you lost money on Herbalife products pursuing the Herbalife business opportunity.
You have never been a GET Team or higher-level member.
The amount of your best, good faith estimate of your total loss from product sales.
Payments under the Cash Settlement Fund will be made only for purchases of Qualified Products. Qualified Products are
products that were:
Purchased for resale purposes.
Purchased from within the U.S. and shipped to you at a location in the U.S.
Not sold by you for at least the cost of purchase.
Not returned through Herbalifes buyback program or Herbalifes satisfaction guarantee.
Not the subject of a claim for recovery from the Product Fund that has been filed pursuant to this settlement.
You must certify the aforementioned information under penalty of perjury.

11. When would I get my payment?
The Court will hold a hearing on May 11, 2015, to decide whether to approve the settlement. If Judge OConnell
approves the settlement, there may be appeals. It is always uncertain whether these appeals can be resolved, and resolving
them can take time. Everyone who sends in a form will be informed of the progress of the settlement. Please be patient.
12. What am I giving up to get a payment and stay in the Class?
Unless you exclude yourself, you will remain in the Class, and that means that you cannot sue, continue to sue, or be part
of any other lawsuit against Herbalife about the legal issues in this case, except as permitted in the Stipulation of
Settlement. It also means that all of the Courts orders, including a release of claims alleged or that could have been
alleged in the lawsuit, will apply to you and legally bind you.
EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT

If you dont want a payment from this settlement, but you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue Herbalife on
your own about the legal claims in this case for monetary relief, then you must take steps to get out of the Class. This is
called excluding yourself, or opting out of the Class.
-6-

#:3875
13. How do I get out of the settlement?
To exclude yourself from the monetary portion of the settlement, you must send an Opt-Out Form (available on the
Claims Administrators website) or letter by mail or by email saying that you want to be excluded from Bostick v.
Herbalife. Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, and your signature. You must mail or email your
exclusion request postmarked no later than March 24, 2015 to:
Bostick v. Herbalife Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 43323, Providence, RI 02940-3323
Herbalife@kccllc.com
You cannot exclude yourself on the phone, but you can request an Opt-Out Form by calling the Claims Administrator at
the phone number listed in this Notice. If you ask to be excluded, you will not get any settlement payment, and you
cannot object to the settlement. You will not be legally bound by anything that happens in this lawsuit. You may be able
to sue (or continue to sue) Herbalife in the future about the legal issues in this case.
14. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue Herbalife for the same thing later?
No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up any right to sue Herbalife for the claims that this settlement resolves. You must
exclude yourself from this Class to continue your own lawsuit. Remember, the exclusion deadline is March 24, 2015.
15. If I exclude myself, can I get money from this settlement?
No. If you take the steps to exclude yourself, do not send in a Claim Form. But, you may sue, continue to sue, or be part
of a different lawsuit against Herbalife, subject to the law applicable to your case.
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU

16. Do I have a lawyer in this case?
The Court approved the law firms of Fabian & Clendenin, P.C. of Salt Lake City, Utah and Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis,
LLP of Santa Barbara, CA to represent you and other Class Members. These lawyers are called Class Counsel. You will not
be charged for these lawyers. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.
17. How will the lawyers be paid?
Class Counsel will ask the Court for attorneys fees of 30% of the total settlement value in an amount not to exceed
$5,250,000 and costs of approximately $200,000 for pursuing this case. The Court may award less than the amounts
requested. These amounts and the costs to administer the settlement will come out of the Cash Settlement Fund, which
will reduce the amount of money available to each member of the Class.
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT

You can tell the Court that you do not agree with the settlement or some part of it.
18. How do I tell the Court that I dont like the settlement?
If you are a Class Member and you have not excluded yourself, you can object to the settlement if you do not like some or
all of it. You can give reasons why you think the Court should not approve it. The Court will consider your views. To do
so, you must mail in a written objection in the case, Dana Bostick, et al. v. Herbalife International of America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-RZ, to:
Central District of California
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Herbalife Objections
Fabian & Clendenin, P.C.
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Bird Marella P.C.
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561

-7-

#:3876
Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, your signature, and the reasons you object to the settlement.
Your objection must be postmarked no later than March 24, 2015.
19. What is the difference between objecting and excluding?
Objecting is simply telling the Court that you dont like something about the settlement. You can object only if you stay
in the Class. Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you dont want to be part of the Class. If you exclude yourself,
you have no basis to object because the case no longer affects you.
THE COURTS FAIRNESS HEARING

The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement. You may attend and you may ask to speak, but
you dont have to.
20. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement?
Judge OConnell will hold a Fairness Hearing at 1:30 p.m. on May 11, 2015 at the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Department 14, Spring St. Floor.
At this hearing Judge OConnell will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are
objections, Judge OConnell will consider them. Judge OConnell will listen to people who have asked to speak at the
hearing. Judge OConnell may also decide how much to pay to Class Counsel. After the hearing, Judge OConnell will
decide whether to approve the settlement. We do not know how long these decisions will take.
21. Do I have to come to the hearing?
No. Class Counsel will answer questions Judge OConnell may have. However, you or your own lawyer are welcome to
come at your own expense. If you send in a written objection, you do not have to come to Court to talk about it. As long
as you submitted your written objection on time and in accordance with this Notice, the Court will consider it.
22. May I speak at the hearing?
You may ask Judge OConnell for permission to speak at the Fairness Hearing. To do so, you must send a letter to the
addresses listed in Question 18 saying that it is your Notice of Intention to Appear in Dana Bostick, et al. v. Herbalife
International of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-RZ. Be sure to include your name, address,
telephone number, and your signature. Your Notice of Intention to Appear must be postmarked no later than
March 24, 2015. You cannot speak at the hearing if you excluded yourself.
IF YOU DO NOTHING
23. What happens if I do nothing at all?
If you do nothing, you will get no money from this settlement. And unless you exclude yourself, you will not be able to
start a lawsuit, continue with a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against Herbalife about the legal issues in this case,
ever again, except as permitted in the Stipulation of Settlement.
GETTING MORE INFORMATION

24. Are there more details about the settlement?
This Notice summarizes the proposed settlement. More details are in a Stipulation of Settlement. You can get a copy of
the Stipulation of Settlement at www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com.
25. How do I get more information?
You can visit the website at www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com, where you will find answers to common
questions about the settlement, a Claim Form, and other information to help you determine whether you are a Class
Member and whether you are eligible for a payment; or you can call 1-877-651-4185 toll free; or write to
Bostick v. Herbalife Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 43323, Providence, RI 02940-3323.

-8-

#:3877
TRIBUNAL DE DISTRITO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS

PARA EL DISTRITO CENTRAL DE CALIFORNIA
Si usted fue distribuidor o miembro de Herbalife en cualquier momento

entre el 1 de abril de 2009, y el 2 de diciembre de 2014,
podra obtener beneficios de una Conciliacin de demanda colectiva.
To obtain a Notification in English, call 1-877-651-4185 or visit www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com.
Un tribunal federal autoriz esta notificacin. La presente no se trata de un ofrecimiento de servicios por parte de un abogado.
Se ha llegado a una conciliacin con Herbalife International of America, Inc.; Herbalife International, Inc.; y Herbalife Ltd.
(en conjunto, Herbalife) respecto a sus prcticas comerciales.
Los individuos que sean incluidos en la conciliacin pueden ser elegibles para recibir un pago. Herbalife tambin ha
acordado cambiar o preservar los recientes cambios a sus prcticas comerciales.
Sus derechos legales podran verse alterados aun cuando no acte. Lea esta Notificacin detenidamente.
SUS DERECHOS LEGALES Y OPCIONES EN ESTA CONCILIACIN

PRESENTAR UN FORMULARIO
DE RECLAMACIN
Y/O FORMULARIO DE
RECLAMACIN DE REEMBOLSO
EXCLURSE
OBJETAR
ASISTIR A UNA AUDIENCIA
NO HACER NADA
Esta es la nica forma de obtener un pago. Esta opcin tendr como consecuencia
que usted renuncia a sus derechos de demandar a Herbalife sobre las reclamaciones
legales en este litigio.
No obtiene pago alguno. Esta es la nica opcin que le permite a usted formar parte
de cualquier otra demanda en contra de Herbalife sobre las reclamaciones legales en
este caso.
Escribir al Tribunal sobre el motivo por el cual le agrada o no, la conciliacin.
Puede pedir la palabra ante el Tribunal con respecto a la imparcialidad de
la conciliacin.
No obtiene pago alguno. Renuncia a sus derechos de demandar a Herbalife sobre las
reclamaciones en este litigio.
TO OBTAIN A NOTIFICATION IN ENGLISH, CALL OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE WWW.HERBALIFECLASSACTIONSETTLEMENT.COM

HIBNWS1

#:3878
QU CONTIENE ESTA NOTIFICACIN

Pgina
INFORMACIN BSICA ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3
1. Por qu recib este paquete de notificacin? ........................................................................................................................................ 3
2. De qu trata esta demanda?.................................................................................................................................................................. 3
3. Por qu esta es una demanda colectiva?............................................................................................................................................... 3
4. Por qu existe una conciliacin? .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
QUINES ESTN INCLUIDOS EN LA CONCILIACIN? ........................................................................................................... 3
5. Cmo s si formo parte de la conciliacin?.......................................................................................................................................... 3
6. Hay excepciones para poder ser incluido? ........................................................................................................................................... 3
7. Todava no estoy seguro de si estoy incluido......................................................................................................................................... 3
LOS BENEFICIOS DE LA CONCILIACIN - LO QUE USTED OBTIENE ................................................................................. 4
8. Qu es lo que se ofrece en la conciliacin?.......................................................................................................................................... 4
9. De cunto ser mi pago? ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
CMO OBTENER UN PAGO O DESCUENTO PRESENTACIN DE UN FORMULARIO DE RECLAMACIN ........... 5
10. Cmo puedo obtener un pago?........................................................................................................................................................... 5
11. Cundo obtendra mi pago?................................................................................................................................................................ 6
12. A qu estoy renunciando para recibir un pago y seguir formando parte del Grupo de demandantes? ............................................... 6
EXCLUIRSE DE LA CONCILIACIN ............................................................................................................................................... 7
13. Cmo puedo salirme de la conciliacin?............................................................................................................................................ 7
14. Si no me excluyo, puedo demandar ms adelante a Herbalife por este mismo asunto?..................................................................... 7
15. Si me excluyo, puedo obtener dinero de esta conciliacin? ............................................................................................................... 7
LOS ABOGADOS QUE LO REPRESENTAN A USTED................................................................................................................... 7
16. Tengo un abogado en este caso? ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
17. Cmo se les pagar a los abogados? .................................................................................................................................................. 7
OBJETAR LA CONCILIACIN .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
18. Cmo puedo informar al Tribunal que no me agrada la conciliacin?............................................................................................... 7
19. Cul es la diferencia entre presentar una objecin y excluirse? ......................................................................................................... 8
LA AUDIENCIA DE IMPARCIALIDAD DEL TRIBUNAL.............................................................................................................. 8
20. Cundo y dnde decidir el Tribunal si aprueba o no la conciliacin? .............................................................................................. 8
21. Debo asistir a la audiencia?................................................................................................................................................................ 8
22. Podr hablar en la audiencia?............................................................................................................................................................. 8
SI OPTA POR NO HACER NADA ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
23. Qu sucede si no hago nada en absoluto? .......................................................................................................................................... 8
OBTENER MS INFORMACIN ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
24. Hay mayor informacin detallada sobre la conciliacin? .................................................................................................................. 8
25. Cmo puedo obtener ms informacin?............................................................................................................................................. 8

-2-

#:3879
INFORMACIN BSICA
1. Por qu recib este paquete de notificacin?

Esta Notificacin se enva a aquellos individuos que posiblemente hayan tenido un acuerdo de distribucin vlido o membreca vlida
con Herbalife entre el 1 de abril de 2009 y el 2 de diciembre de 2014.
El Tribunal le envi esta Notificacin porque usted tiene el derecho de saber acerca de la propuesta de conciliacin de un litigio de
demanda colectiva, y todas las opciones que tiene a su disposicin antes de que el Tribunal decida si aprueba o no la conciliacin. Si el
Tribunal la aprueba, y una vez resueltas las objeciones y apelaciones, un administrador nombrado por el Tribunal (el Administrador
de reclamaciones) distribuir los pagos dispuestos en la conciliacin. Usted recibir informacin sobre el progreso de la conciliacin.
Este paquete explica la demanda, la conciliacin, sus derechos legales, lo beneficios de los que dispone, quines son elegibles para
recibirlos y cmo obtenerlos.
El Tribunal a cargo del caso es el Tribunal de Distrito de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito Central de California, y el caso se conoce
como Dana Bostick, et al. v. Herbalife International of America, Inc., et al., Caso n. 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-RZ. El juez Beverly Reid
OConnell supervisa esta demanda colectiva. Las personas que presentaron la demanda se denominan Demandantes. La personas
que fueron demandadas, Herbalife International of America, Inc.; Herbalife International, Inc.; y Herbalife Ltd. (en conjunto,
Herbalife), son los Demandados.
2. De qu trata esta demanda?
La demanda reclamaba que Herbalife operaba bajo un esquema piramidal contrario a la legislacin estatal de California. La demanda
tambin reclama que los materiales promocionales de Herbalife hacan afirmaciones engaosas respecto a ciertas oportunidades de
negocio. Herbalife niega que haya obrado de mala forma y se defendi de forma enrgica en la demanda.
3. Por qu esta es una demanda colectiva?
En una demanda colectiva, una o ms personas llamadas Representantes del Grupo de demandantes (en este caso Dana Bostick, Anita
Vasko, Judi Trotter, Beverly Molnar y Chester Cote), presentan una demanda en nombre de personas que se encuentran en una situacin
similar. Todas estas personas son el Grupo de demandantes o los Miembros del Grupo de demandantes. Un tribunal resuelve los
problemas de todos los Miembros del Grupo de demandantes, excepto los de las personas que se excluyan del Grupo de demandantes.
4. Por qu existe una conciliacin?
El Tribunal no fall a favor de los Demandantes ni de Herbalife. En su lugar, ambas partes aceptaron llegar a una conciliacin. De esta
forma, ambas partes evitan el costo de un juicio, y las personas afectadas recibirn compensacin. Herbalife niega todas las
reclamaciones legales en este caso. Los Representantes del Grupo de demandantes y sus abogados consideran que la conciliacin es lo
mejor para todos los Miembros del Grupo de demandantes.
QUINES ESTN INCLUIDOS EN LA CONCILIACIN?

Para ver si usted obtendr dinero de esta conciliacin, primero debe convertirse en Miembro del Grupo de demandantes.
5. Cmo s si formo parte de la conciliacin?
Los Miembros del Grupo de demandantes son detallados en la Estipulacin de la Conciliacin. En general, todas las personas que,
durante el periodo comprendido entre el 1 de abril de 2009 hasta el 2 de diciembre de 2014, hayan tenido un acuerdo de distribucin
vlido o membreca vlida con Herbalife se incluyen en el grupo de demandantes.
6. Hay excepciones para poder ser incluido?
Usted no es Miembro del Grupo de demandantes si fue o es empleado de Herbalife o miembro familiar de un empleado de Herbalife.
Usted no es Miembro del Grupo de demandantes si fue o es miembro del Presidents Team (Equipo de Presidencia), Founders Circle
(Crculo del Fundador), Chairmans Club (Club de Presidencia), Millionaire Team (Equipo Millonario), o GET Team (Equipo GET).
Usted no es Miembro del Grupo de demandantes con derecho a recibir algn pago si usted acept someterse a las disposiciones de
arbitraje que se encuentran en el Acuerdo de arbitraje para disputas entre miembros y Herbalife contenidas en el Acuerdo de solicitud
de membreca vigente a septiembre de 2013. Sin embargo, an puede ser Miembro del Grupo de demandantes afectado por los
elementos no monetarios de la conciliacin incluso si usted firm un Acuerdo de arbitraje.
7. Todava no estoy seguro de si estoy incluido.
Si usted an no est seguro de si est incluido, puede solicitar ayuda gratuita ponindose en contacto con los Abogados de los
Demandantes a: (385) 202-5061. Tambin puede llamar al 1-877-651-4185 o visite www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com para
obtener mayor informacin. O puede diligenciar y regresar el formulario de reclamacin descrito en la pgina 5, en la pregunta 10,
para ver si usted rene los requisitos necesarios.
-3-

#:3880
LOS BENEFICIOS DE LA CONCILIACIN - LO QUE USTED OBTIENE
8. Qu es lo que se ofrece en la conciliacin?

Herbalife ha acordado establecer dos Fondos de conciliacin para miembros y distribuidores actuales y pasados.
Fondo de conciliacin en efectivo: Se usarn 15 millones USD en efectivo para pagar a miembros o distribuidores de
Herbalife que hayan presentado reclamaciones vlidas. El fondo tambin se usar para pagar honorarios y costos de
abogados (vase Pregunta 17) as como los costos de administracin de la conciliacin.
Fondo de devolucin de productos: Se pondrn a disposicin hasta 2,5 millones USD para pagar a miembros o
distribuidores que presenten reclamaciones vlidas para la devolucin de productos no usados ni abiertos (lo que excluye los
Paquetes Comerciales Internacionales [International Business Packs] y los Minipaquetes Comerciales Internacionales [MiniInternational Business Packs]). Se pueden usar 2,5 millones USD adicionales del Fondo de conciliacin en efectivo descrito
anteriormente para pagar por devoluciones de productos adicionales si las reclamaciones vlidas exceden el monto del Fondo
de devolucin de productos.
Herbalife tambin ha acordado hacer o continuar varios cambios a sus polticas y procedimientos corporativos durante mnimo tres aos a
partir de la fecha en que el Tribunal d su aprobacin final de esta conciliacin. A continuacin se detallan dichas polticas corporativas:
1.
Herbalife no podr cobrar simultneamente y por separado a sus miembros un honorario de Empaque y manejo
(o un honorario similar) y un Cargo de transporte de pedido (o un honorario similar).
2.
Herbalife no definir Distribuidor en su Glosario de trminos como Toda persona que compre un Paquete de
miembro Herbalife oficial (Official Herbalife Member Pack) y presente a Herbalife una Solicitud de membreca vlida
y completa y cuya Solicitud haya sido aceptada por Herbalife.
3.
Herbalife continuar disuadiendo a sus miembros de incurrir en deudas para dedicarse a la oportunidad de negocio
de Herbalife.
4.
Herbalife continuar pagando los cargos de transporte para la devolucin de productos a Herbalife en relacin con sus
polticas de recompra de inventario.
5.
Herbalife continuar ejecutando sus normas y manteniendo un departamento de cumplimiento normativo de

miembros. Herbalife tambin deber continuar revisando y complementando sus polticas, procedimientos y
reglamentos de miembros segn Herbalife considere necesario en el ejercicio de su juicio comercial razonable.
6.
Herbalife continuar prohibiendo a sus miembros vender listas de clientes potenciales a otros miembros o comprar
listas de clientes potenciales de cualquier otra fuente.
7.
Herbalife continuar prohibiendo a sus miembros que soliciten a una persona que compre un producto (salvo un
Paquete de Miembro Mini o Completo) como condicin para convertirse en miembro o distribuidor de Herbalife.
8.
Herbalife continuar solicitando que antes de abrir un Club de Nutricin (Nutrition Club) en una sede no residencial, el
miembro de Herbalife debe haber sido miembro durante mnimo 90 das y recibir capacitacin obligatoria de operador
de Club de Nutricin.
9.
Herbalife incluir su Declaracin de compensacin bruta promedia (Statement of Average Gross Compensation, SAGC)
como parte de su solicitud de membreca.
10.
Herbalife deber exigir que los nuevos miembros reconozcan haber revisado la SAGC cuando firmen una nueva
Solicitud y Acuerdo de membreca Herbalife y continuar incluyendo o vinculando a la SAGC con ese Acuerdo.
11.
Herbalife deber continuar divulgando en su SAGC el nmero total y porcentaje de todos los miembros que no reciban
ningn pago compensatorio directamente de Herbalife.
12.
Herbalife deber aclarar en su Plan de ventas y mercadeo que tras cumplir los requisitos necesarios para ser Supervisor,
un miembro tendr como mnimo 12 meses durante los cuales podr ser reevaluado como Supervisor.
13.
Herbalife deber enmendar el Acuerdo de membreca en versin fsica para definir Declaracin de compensacin
como Declaracin de compensacin bruta promedio pagada por Herbalife, e incluir la siguiente declaracin: Por
medio del presente asevero, garantizo y acuerdo que no me estoy basando y que no me basar en ninguna otra informacin
o afirmacin verbal o escrita sobre los resultados financieros que yo pueda lograr. Herbalife puede modificar el Acuerdo
de membreca siempre que dichas modificaciones no sean considerablemente incongruentes con estas enmiendas.
Notas: Los honorarios y costos de abogados, los costos de administracin de la conciliacin y otros costos correspondientes, sern
pagados a partir del Fondo de conciliacin en efectivo. El saldo del Fondo de conciliacin en efectivo ser usado para pagar
reclamaciones vlidas presentadas por Miembros del Grupo de demandantes.
Podr conocer ms detalles sobre la conciliacin, consulte la Estipulacin de conciliacin, que se encuentra disponible en:
www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com.
-4-

#:3881
9. De cunto ser mi pago?
Su cuota de la conciliacin depender del nmero de formularios de reclamacin vlidos que enven los Miembros del Grupo de
demandantes, la naturaleza de su reclamacin y el monto de honorarios y cotos de abogados adoptados por el Tribunal.
Habr disponibles tres tipos de beneficios monetarios a partir de los dos Fondos de Conciliacin. Los Miembros del Grupo de
demandantes podran recibir beneficios de las siguientes formas:
Tipo 1: Indemnizacin de devolucin de producto (fondo de devolucin de productos)
Los Miembros del Grupo de demandantes pueden presentar reclamaciones para regresar productos no usados ni abiertos (excluidos los
Paquetes Comerciales Internacionales y Minipaquetes Comerciales Internacionales) comprados con ms de un ao de antelacin al
3 de febrero de 2015, la fecha lmite para presentar formularios de reclamacin. Despus de este plazo, el Administrador de
reclamaciones publicar en el sitio web de la conciliacin de demanda colectiva www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com una
notificacin del pago de devolucin y en ese momento, usted tendr la posibilidad de devolver los productos identificados en sus
formularios de reclamacin.
Notas: Si el monto de devolucin de productos excede el monto en el Fondo de devolucin de productos, los pagos a los Miembros del
Grupo de demandantes se reducirn de forma proporcional para que se puedan pagar todas las reclamaciones vlidas. Todo costo de
envo ser pagado a partir del Fondo de devolucin de productos. Si usted compr productos Herbalife dentro de un ao antes del
3 de febrero de 2015, usted puede tener derecho a un reembolso en virtud de las Garantas estndares Gold de Herbalife (Gold
Standard Guarantees), que son administradas directamente por Herbalife y no forman parte de esta conciliacin.
Tipo 2: Indemnizacin de oportunidad de negocio (Fondo de conciliacin en efectivo)
Si usted (a) se adhiri a Herbalife principalmente para dedicarse a una oportunidad de negocio y su razn principal para adherirse no
fue el consumo personal y/o familiar de productos Herbalife; (b) en total, perdi dinero en productos de Herbalife en la dedicacin a la
oportunidad de negocio de Herbalife; y (c) nunca ha sido miembro del GET Team o un equipo de nivel ms alto, entonces es posible
que usted rena los requisitos para una indemnizacin del Fondo de conciliacin en efectivo con base en sus compras de
Productos aceptables.
Un producto Herbalife es un Producto aceptable si este (i) fue comprado con propsito de reventa; (ii) fue comprado dentro de los
EE. UU. y enviado a usted en un lugar de los EE. UU.; (iii) no fue vendido por mnimo el costo de compra; (iv) no fue devuelto a
travs del programa de recompra de Herbalife o garanta de satisfaccin de Herbalife; (v) no fue objeto de una reclamacin para
compensacin del Fondo de productos que haya sido registrada conforme a esta conciliacin.
Indemnizacin prorrateada
Si usted pag a Herbalife como mnimo 750 USD para comprar Productos aceptables durante cualquier Ao de reclamacin, puede ser
elegible para una indemnizacin prorrateada obtenida del Fondo de conciliacin en efectivo igual a un 100 % de la prdida total
estimada de sus ventas de Productos aceptables o un 50 % del precio que usted pago para su total de Producto aceptable, el monto
que sea menor. Un Ao de reclamacin es un periodo de doce meses que inicia y finaliza el primer da del mes en que usted se
convirti en miembro de Herbalife.
Notas: Si las reclamaciones exceden el monto disponible para Indemnizaciones prorrateadas, se reducirn los pagos a los Miembros
del Grupo de demandantes en forma proporcional para que puedan pagarse todas las reclamaciones vlidas.
Indemnizacin de tarifa plana
Si usted no pag a Herbalife como mnimo 750 USD para comprar Productos aceptables durante un Ao de reclamacin (como se
define arriba), usted puede tener derecho a un pago de 20 USD que sern pagados a partir del Fondo de conciliacin en efectivo.
Notas: Si las reclamaciones exceden el monto disponible para Indemnizaciones de tarifa plana, se reducirn los pagos a los Miembros
del Grupo de demandantes en forma proporcional para que puedan pagarse todas las reclamaciones vlidas.
Todo monto restante en el Fondo de conciliacin en efectivo despus de los pagos especificados en la Indemnizacin de oportunidad
de negocio ser pagado conforme a la doctrina cy pres a la siguiente organizacin de beneficencia o a la organizacin de beneficencia
que acuerden mutuamente las parten y cuente con la aprobacin del Tribunal:
Consumer Federation of America (Federacin de Consumidores de Amrica)
En la medida en que se acumulen intereses sobre los montos mantenidos por el Administrador de reclamaciones antes de la
distribucin conforme a lo establecido en la Estipulacin de conciliacin, estos le correspondern y sern pagaderos a Herbalife.
CMO OBTENER UN PAGOPRESENTACIN DE UN FORMULARIO DE RECLAMACIN

10. Cmo puedo obtener un pago?
Para poder obtener un pago del Fondo de conciliacin en efectivo y un Fondo de devolucin de productos, debe enviar un formulario
de reclamacin. Puede obtener el formulario de reclamacin con el Administrador de reclamaciones en su sitio web
www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com o solicitndolo por telfono llamando a la lnea 1-877-651-4185. Lea las instrucciones con
detenimiento, llene el(los) formulario(s) y firme y (si no lo llena en Internet) enve por correo postal el(los) formulario(s) con fecha de
sello postal de a ms tardar el 3 de febrero de 2015.
-5-

#:3882
Pagos de devolucin de productos
Para recibir un pago en virtud del Fondo de devolucin de productos, debe identificar lo siguiente en su formulario de reclamacin:
Nmero de referencia de producto (Stock-Keeping Unit, SKU).
Fecha estimada de compra de los productos que se van a devolver.
El monto real pagado para cada producto que usted pretende devolver.
Si no puede proveer el monto real pagado por los productos que usted pretender devolver, debe certificar bajo pena
de perjurio que usted no est en capacidad de brindar dicha informacin y luego indicar un monto de compra estimado.
Asumiendo que toda la otra informacin que usted brind es adecuada, el Administrador de reclamaciones entonces
calcular el monto pagado como su monto de compra estimado o un 50 % del Precio sugerido de venta al pblico de
Herbalife para el producto en la fecha de compra, el monto que sea menor.
Para poder obtener un pago del Fondo de devolucin de productos, despus de que el Administrador de reclamaciones publique una
notificacin del pago de devolucin en Internet en www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com, debe regresar el producto identificado
en su formulario de reclamacin siguiendo las indicaciones detalladas en el sitio web.
Pagos de conciliacin en efectivo
Para recibir un pago en virtud del Fondo de conciliacin en efectivo, debe certificar, en su formulario de reclamacin, bajo pena de
perjurio lo siguiente:
Usted se adhiri a Herbalife principalmente para dedicarse a una oportunidad de negocio y no por el motivo principal
de consumir personalmente (o como familia) productos Herbalife.
En total, usted perdi dinero en productos Herbalife al dedicarse a la oportunidad de negocio de Herbalife.
Usted nunca ha sido miembro del GET Team o un nivel superior.
El monto de su estimado ms cercano y de buena fe de su prdida total derivada de las ventas de productos.
Los pagos en virtud del Fondo de conciliacin en efectivo sern hechos solamente para compras de Productos aprobados. Los
Productos aceptables son productos que:
Fueron comprados con propsitos de reventa.
Fueron comprados dentro de los Estados Unidos y enviados a usted en un lugar de los EE. UU.
No fueron vendidos por usted como mnimo al costo de compra.
No fueron devueltos a travs del programa de recompra de Herbalife o la garanta de satisfaccin de Herbalife.
No fueron objeto de un reclamo de indemnizacin a partir del Fondo de productos que haya sido registrado conforme a
esta conciliacin.
Usted debe certificar la anterior informacin bajo pena de perjurio.

11. Cundo obtendra mi pago?
El Tribunal llevar a cabo una audiencia el 11 de mayo de 2015, para decidir si aprueba la conciliacin. Si el juez OConnell aprueba
la conciliacin, puede haber apelaciones. Es imposible determinar con certeza si estas apelaciones pueden resolverse, y el hecho de
resolverlas puede tardar cierto tiempo. Todas las personas que enven un formulario sern informadas del progreso de la conciliacin.
Tenga paciencia.
12. A qu estoy renunciando para recibir un pago y seguir formando parte del Grupo de demandantes?
A menos que se excluya usted mismo, seguir formando parte del Grupo de demandantes, y eso significa que usted no puede
demandar, seguir demandando ni ser parte de cualquier otra demanda en contra de Herbalife sobre los asuntos legales en este caso,
salvo en la medida permitida por la Estipulacin de conciliacin. Tambin significa que todas las rdenes del Tribunal, incluida una
exoneracin de reclamaciones alegadas o que pudieran haber sido alegadas en la demanda, se aplicarn a usted y sern legalmente
vinculantes para usted.
EXCLUIRSE DE LA CONCILIACIN
Si no desea obtener un pago de esta conciliacin, pero desea conservar su derecho a demandar o proseguir una demanda en contra de
Herbalife mediante sus propios medios sobre las reclamaciones legales en este caso por compensacin monetaria, entonces usted debe tomar
medidas para salir del Grupo de demandantes. Esto se conoce como el nombre de exclusin, o excluirse del Grupo de demandantes.

-6-

#:3883
13. Cmo puedo salirme de la conciliacin?
Para excluirse de la conciliacin, usted debe enviar un Formulario de exclusin (que es est disponible en el sitio web del
Administrador de reclamaciones) o una carta por correo postal o por correo electrnico en la que indique que usted desea ser excluido
de Bostick v. Herbalife. Asegrese de incluir su nombre, direccin, nmero de telfono y firma. Debe enviar por correo postal o
electrnico su solicitud de exclusin con fecha de franqueo postal de a ms tardar el 24 de marzo de 2015 a:
P.O. Box 43323, Providence, RI 02940-3323
Herbalife@kccllc.com
No puede excluirse por telfono, pero puede solicitar un Formulario de exclusin llamando al Administrador de reclamaciones al
nmero telefnico que se indica en esta Notificacin. Si solicita ser excluido, no obtendr ningn pago de conciliacin, y no podr
objetar la conciliacin. No quedar vinculado legalmente por cualquier hecho que suceda en esta demanda. Usted puede demandar (o
proseguir su demanda contra) Herbalife en el futuro respecto a los asuntos legales de este caso.
14. Si no me excluyo, puedo demandar ms adelante a Herbalife por este mismo asunto?
No. A menos que se excluya, usted renuncia a cualquier derecho de demandar a Herbalife por las reclamaciones que resuelve esta
Conciliacin. Debe excluirse de este Grupo de demandantes para proseguir su propia demanda. Recuerde que la fecha lmite para la
exclusin es el 24 de marzo de 2015.
15. Si me excluyo, puedo obtener dinero de esta conciliacin?
No. Si toma las medidas para excluirse, no enve un formulario de reclamacin. Pero, puede demandar, proseguir su demanda, o
formar parte de una demanda diferente en contra de Herbalife, a reserva de la legislacin aplicable a su caso.
LOS ABOGADOS QUE LO REPRESENTAN A USTED

16. Tengo un abogado en este caso?
El Tribunal aprob los bufetes de abogados de Fabian & Clendenin, P.C. de Salt Lake City, Utah, y Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP
de Santa Barbara, CA, para que lo representen a usted y a otros Miembros del Grupo de demandantes. Estos abogados se denominan
Abogados del Grupo de demandantes. A usted no se le cobrar por estos abogados. Si desea ser representado por su propio abogado en
este caso, puede contratar a uno y responsabilizarse por los gastos pertinentes.
17. Cmo se les pagar a los abogados?
Los Abogados del Grupo de demandantes solicitarn al Tribunal honorarios de abogados equivalentes a un 30 % del valor de conciliacin
total por un monto que no exceda los 5.250.000 USD y costas por aproximadamente 200.000 USD por hacerse cargo de este caso.
El Tribunal puede adjudicar un monto menor al solicitado. Estos montos y los costos de administrar la conciliacin sern extrados del
Fondo de conciliacin en efectivo, que reducir el monto de dinero disponible para cada miembro del Grupo de demandantes.
OBJETAR LA CONCILIACIN
Usted puede indicarle al Tribunal que no acepta la conciliacin o alguna parte de la misma.
18. Cmo puedo informar al Tribunal que no me agrada la conciliacin?
Si usted es Miembro del Grupo de demandantes y no se ha excluido, puede objetar la conciliacin si no le gusta alguna parte o la
totalidad de la misma. Podr manifestar los motivos por los que cree que el Tribunal no debe aprobarla. El Tribunal considerar su
opinin. Para hacerlo, debe enviar por correo postal una objecin escrita en el caso, Dana Bostick, et al. v. Herbalife International of
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-RZ, a:
Central District of California
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Fabian & Clendenin, P.C.
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Bird Marella P.C.
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561

-7-

#:3884
Asegrese de incluir su nombre, direccin, nmero de telfono y firma junto con los motivos por los que objeta la conciliacin. Su
objecin debe tener fecha de franqueo postal de a ms tardar el 24 de marzo de 2015.
19. Cul es la diferencia entre presentar una objecin y excluirse?
Presentar una objecin simplemente significa decirle al Tribunal que a usted no le agrada algo acerca de la conciliacin. Solo puede
presentar una objecin si usted permanece en el Grupo de demandantes. Excluirse es decirle al Tribunal que usted no quiere formar
parte del Grupo de demandantes. Si se excluye, no tendr motivos para presentar objeciones dado que usted ya no est vinculado con
el caso.
LA AUDIENCIA DE IMPARCIALIDAD DEL TRIBUNAL

El Tribunal llevar a cabo una audiencia para decidir si aprueba la conciliacin. Usted puede asistir y pedir la palabra, aunque no es
necesario que lo haga.
20. Cundo y dnde decidir el Tribunal si aprueba o no la conciliacin?
El juez OConnell llevar a cabo una Audiencia de imparcialidad a las 1:30 p.m. en 11 de mayo del 2015 en el Tribunal de Distrito de
los Estados Unidos para el Distrito Central de California (United States District Court for the Central District of California), 312 North
Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Department 14, Spring St. Floor. En esta audiencia, el juez OConnell considerar si la
conciliacin es justa, razonable y adecuada. Si hay objeciones, el juez OConnell las considerar. El juez OConnell escuchar a las
personas que hayan pedido la palabra en la audiencia. El juez OConnell tambin puede decidir cunto pagar a los Abogados del
Grupo de demandantes. Despus de esta audiencia, el juez OConnell decidir si aprueba o no la conciliacin. No sabemos cunto
tiempo tardar tomar estas decisiones.
21. Debo asistir a la audiencia?
No. Los Abogados del Grupo de demandantes respondern las preguntas que pueda tener el juez OConnell. Sin embargo, usted o su
propio abogado estn bienvenidos a asistir a sus propias expensas. Si enva una objecin por escrito, no es necesario que se presente
ante el Tribunal para hablar sobre ella. Siempre y cuando haya enviado su objecin por escrito oportunamente y de conformidad con
esta Notificacin, el Tribunal la tendr en cuenta.
22. Podr hablar en la audiencia?
Usted puede pedirle permiso al juez OConnell para tomar la palabra en la Audiencia de imparcialidad. Para hacerlo, debe enviar una
carta a la direccines que aparece en la pregunta 18 indicando que esta es su Notice of Intention to Appear in (Notificacin de
intencin de comparecer en) Dana Bostick, et al. v. Herbalife International of America, Inc., et al., Caso n. 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-RZ.
Asegrese de incluir su nombre, direccin, nmero de telfono y firma. Su notificacin de intencin de Comparecer debe tener fecha
de franqueo postal de a ms tardar el 24 de marzo de 2015. No puede tomar la palabra en la audiencia si se excluy.
SI OPTA POR NO HACER NADA

23. Qu sucede si no hago nada en absoluto?
Si no hace nada, no obtendr dinero de esta conciliacin. Y a menos que se excluya, no podr en ningn momento en el futuro
entablar una demanda, continuar una demanda, ni ser parte de ninguna otra demanda contra Herbalife sobre los asuntos legales en este
caso, salvo lo dispuesto en la Estipulacin de conciliacin.
OBTENER MS INFORMACIN
24. Hay mayor informacin detallada sobre la conciliacin?
La presente Notificacin es un resumen de la conciliacin propuesta. En la Estipulacin de conciliacin podr encontrar ms detalles.
Usted puede obtener una copia de la Estipulacin de conciliacin en www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com.
25. Cmo puedo obtener ms informacin?
Puede visitar el sitio web en www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com, donde encontrar respuestas a preguntas frecuentes sobre la
conciliacin, un formulario de reclamacin y otra informacin que le ayudar a determinar si usted es un Miembro del Grupo de
demandantes y si usted es elegible para obtener un pago; o puede llamar a la lnea gratuita 1-877-651-4185; o escribir a Bostick v.
Herbalife Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 43323, Providence, RI 02940-3323.

-8-

#:3885
Exhibit D

#:3886
P.O. Box 43323
HIB
Barcode
Claim #: HIB-ClaimID
First1 Last1
co
Addr1 Addr2
City, ST Zip
Country
MailRec
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Dana Bostick, et al. v. Herbalife International of America Inc. et al.
Case No. 13-CV-02488-BRO
CLAIM FORM
Deadline for Submission: February 3, 2015 (the Filing Deadline)
SECTION I: GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
If you were a Herbalife Distributor or Member in the United States from April 1, 2009 to December 2, 2014, you may be
eligible to receive the following benefits under the Settlement Agreement (the Settlement):
y
Product Return Award: up to a 100% refund in exchange for return of unused and unopened
products (except International Business Packs (IBPs) or Mini-IBPs) purchased more than
one year prior to the Filing Deadline (see SECTION IV); and
Business Opportunity Award: up to: (i) 100% of your estimated total loss from product sales;
(ii) 50% of the price you paid for Qualified Products (see SECTION V); or (iii) $20.
To determine your eligibility for these benefits, complete the applicable section(s) of this Claim Form, sign and date it,
and mail it, postmarked no later than the Filing Deadline, to:
P.O. Box 43323
It is important that all of the information you provide in this Claim Form is true, accurate, and complete. You may be
required to provide documentation supporting the answers you have provided. Persons who submit false or fraudulent
claims will not be eligible for compensation.
Note: You may elect to be excluded from the monetary portion of the Settlement by submitting an Opt-Out Form
(available on the Claims Administrators website) or sending a letter asking to be excluded on or before
March 24, 2015. See the Class Notice for more details. If you elect to be excluded from the Settlement, you will not be
eligible to receive any monetary benefits under the Settlement.
*HIBClaimID*
ClaimID
HIBPOC1

#:3887
SECTION II: DISTRIBUTOR/MEMBER INFORMATION
All Claimants must provide the following identifying information:
Name:
Address:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Phone Number:
Email:
Herbalife ID Number:
SECTION III: CLAIM ELIGIBILITY
To be eligible for any Claim, you must certify that you meet the following eligibility requirements. If you do not meet
all of the following requirements, you are not eligible to make a Claim.
_______
By initialing here, I certify under penalty of perjury that I was an Herbalife Distributor or Member in
the United States for some period of time during the period from April 2009 to December 2, 2014.
_______
By initialing here, I certify under penalty of perjury that I am not an employee or immediate family
member of an employee of Herbalife.
_______
By initialing here, I certify under penalty of perjury that I was never a member of the Herbalife
Presidents Team, Founders Circle, Chairmans Club, Millionaire Team, or the GET Team.
_______
By initialing here, I certify under penalty of perjury that I did not sign an Arbitration Agreement for
Disputes Between Members and Herbalife contained in the Member Application Agreement dated on
or after September 2013.
SECTION IV: PRODUCT RETURN CLAIMS

You may use this section to submit a Claim for a Product Return Payment in exchange for return of unused and
unopened Herbalife products, excluding International Business Packs (IBPs) and mini-IBPs, purchased more than
one year prior to the Filing Deadline.
To determine your Product Return Payment amount, provide the following information in the table below for each unused
and unopened Herbalife product that you wish to return: (i) Herbalife Product Stock Keeping Unit (Product SKU)
number; (ii) the approximate date on which you purchased the product (Purchase Date); and (iii) the actual purchase
price paid for the product (Actual Purchase Price). If you require additional space, please attach an addendum to this
Claim Form providing the requested information for the additional Herbalife products that you wish to return.
If you are unable to provide the actual purchase price for a particular product, please provide an Estimated Purchase Price
for that product. Assuming all other information is provided for that item, the Claims Administrator will determine the
amount paid to be the lesser of the estimated purchase price or 50% of Herbalifes Suggested Retail Price for the product
on the Purchase Date.
-2-
*HIBClaimID*
ClaimID

#:3888
Product SKU
Purchase Date
Actual Purchase Price
Estimated Purchase Price
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
_______
By initialing here, I certify under penalty of perjury that the products listed above are unopened
and unused, and that they were purchased more than one year prior to the Filing Deadline.
_______
By initialing here, I certify under penalty of perjury that for each Estimated Purchase Price
provided above, I am unable to determine the Actual Purchase Price for that item.
The Claims Administrator will determine the amount of the Product Return Payment for which you may be eligible based
on the information you provide in the table above and the available settlement funds. Your Product Return Payment may
be reduced based on the amount of funds available to satisfy all claims (see the Class Notice for more details). By
March 2, 2015, you may view the amount of the Product Return Payment for which you are eligible (subject to proper
return
of
all
identified
products)
by
visiting
the
Claims
Administrator
Website
at
www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com and providing your email address and Herbalife Identification Number.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court, you will receive notice of the approval and will be provided with instructions
on how to complete your Product Return Claim. At that time, you will be instructed to return within a specified time
period the above-listed Herbalife products that you wish to return. Once Herbalife has processed your return, a Product
Return Payment will be issued.
SECTION V: BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY CLAIMS
You may use this section to submit claims for a cash award based on losses you claim to have incurred by purchasing
Qualified Products while pursuing the Herbalife Business Opportunity. You will receive a larger payment if you return
a product by making a Product Return Claim than if you make a claim based on that purchase under this section.
To be eligible for a Business Opportunity Claim, you must certify that you meet the following eligibility requirements.
If you do not meet one or more of the following requirements, you are not eligible to make a Business Opportunity Claim.
_______
By initialing here, I certify under penalty of perjury that I joined Herbalife primarily to pursue a business
opportunity and not primarily for personal and/or family consumption.
_______
By initialing here, I certify under penalty of perjury that, in pursuing the Herbalife business opportunity,
I did not recover/earn back the amount of money I spent purchasing product directly from Herbalife
for resale.
-3-
*HIBClaimID*
ClaimID

#:3889 Opportunity Claim. A Qualified Product is a Herbalife
Only purchases of Qualified Products are eligible for a Business
Product that:
y
You purchased directly from Herbalife on or after April 1, 2009;
Was purchased for resale purposes;
Was purchased within the United States and shipped directly to you at a location in the United States;
You did not resell for at least a break-even price;
Was not returned through Herbalifes buyback program, Herbalifes satisfaction guarantee, or for which you
have made or will make a Product Return Claim under the terms of this Settlement.
Please provide the Estimated Total Loss you incurred in selling Qualified Products in the space provided below. Your
Estimated Total Loss is the difference between the total amount you paid to purchase Qualified Products and the total
revenues that you received selling those products. Your estimate must be based on the best information available to you
with which you can be reasonably certain of your claimed losses.
Estimated Total Loss:
_______
By initialing here, I certify under penalty of perjury that the Total Estimated Loss I have provided
is a good faith estimate of the losses that I incurred in selling Qualified Products.
Your Estimated Total Loss will be reviewed by the Claims Administrator using purchase history data provided by
Herbalife to ensure that your Business Opportunity Claim Award does not exceed the limits provided under the Settlement
Agreement. For an explanation of how your Business Opportunity Claim Award is determined, please refer to [Section 9
of the Class Notice]. Your Business Opportunity Claim Award may be reduced based on the amount of funds available
to satisfy all claims (see the Class Notice for more details). By March 2, 2015, you may view your Business Opportunity
Claim Award by visiting the Claims Administrator Website at www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com and providing
your email address and Herbalife Identification Number.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court, you will receive notice of the approval and your Business Opportunity Award
will be issued unless you request to be excluded from the Settlement on or before March 24, 2015.
SECTION VI: CERTIFICATION AND SIGNATURE
By signing this Claim Form, you acknowledge that the Claims Administrator may ask Herbalife to provide certain
information related to your Herbalife Distributorship, including tax forms and other financial data, to verify your Claim.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this Claim Form is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Signature:
Date (mm/dd/yyyy):
Print Name:
-4-
*HIBClaimID*
ClaimID

#:3890
P.O. Box 43323
HIB
Barcode
Claim #: HIB-ClaimID
First1 Last1
co
Addr1 Addr2
City, ST Zip
Country
MailRec
TRIBUNAL DE DISTRITO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS

DISTRITO CENTRAL DE CALIFORNIA
Dana Bostick, et al. v. Herbalife International of America Inc. et al.
Caso n. 13-CV-02488-BRO
FORMULARIO DE RECLAMACIN
Fecha lmite de entrega: 3 de febrero de 2015 (la Fecha lmite de entrega)
SECCIN I: INSTRUCCIONES GENERALES
Si usted fue distribuidor o miembro de Herbalife en los Estados Unidos en cualquier momento despus de abril de 2009,
puede ser elegible para recibir los siguientes beneficios en virtud del Acuerdo de conciliacin (la Conciliacin):
y
Indemnizacin de devolucin de productos: hasta un 100 % de reembolso en intercambio por la devolucin de

productos no usados ni abiertos (excepto Paquetes Comerciales Internacionales (International Business Packs) o
Minipaquetes Comerciales Internacionales (Mini-International Business Packs) (consulte la SECCIN IV); y
Indemnizacin de oportunidad de negocio: de hasta: (i) 100 % de su prdida total estimada de las ventas de
productos; (ii) 50 % del precio que usted pag por Productos aceptables (vase SECCIN V); o (iii) 20 USD.
Para determinar su elegibilidad para estos beneficios, complete la(s) seccin(es) correspondiente(s) de este Formulario de
reclamacin, frmelo, fchelo y envelo por correo postal con fecha de franqueo de a ms tardar la Fecha lmite de entrega, a:
P.O. Box 43323
Es importante que toda la informacin que usted suministre en este Formulario de reclamacin sea veraz, precisa y
completa. Es posible que se le solicite proveer documentacin que respalde las respuestas que usted haya suministrado.
Las personas que presenten reclamaciones falsas o fraudulentas no sern elegibles para compensacin.
Nota: Puede optar por ser excluido de la porcin monetaria de la Conciliacin enviando un Formulario de exclusin
(que est disponible en el sitio web del Administrador de reclamaciones) o una carta en la que solicite ser excluido a
ms tardar el 24 de marzo de 2015. Vase la Notificacin del Grupo de demandantes para conocer ms detalles.
Si usted opta por ser excluido de la Conciliacin, no ser elegible para recibir ningn beneficio monetario en virtud de
la Conciliacin.
*HIBClaimID*
ClaimID
HIBPCS1

#:3891
SECCIN II: INFORMACIN DEL DISTRIBUIDOR/MIEMBRO
Todos los reclamantes deben presentar la siguiente informacin de identificacin:
Nombre:
Direccin:
Ciudad:
Estado:
Cdigo postal:
Nmero de telfono:
Correo electrnico:
Nmero de ID de Herbalife:
SECCIN III: ELEGIBILIDAD DE RECLAMACIONES
Para ser elegible para cualquier Reclamacin, debe certificar que usted cumple los siguientes requerimientos de
elegibilidad. Si no cumple todos los siguientes requerimientos, no es elegible para hacer una Reclamacin.
Al poner mis iniciales aqu, certifico bajo pena de perjurio que fui distribuidor o miembro de Herbalife
_______ en los Estados Unidos por algn periodo de tiempo durante el periodo comprendido entre abril de 2009 hasta
el presente.
Al poner mis iniciales aqu, certifico bajo pena de perjurio que no soy empleado ni miembro familiar
_______ inmediato de un empleado de Herbalife.
Al poner mis iniciales aqu, certifico bajo pena de perjurio que nunca fui miembro del Presidents Team
_______ (Equipo de Presidente), Founders Circle (Crculo del Fundador), Chairmans Club (Club del Presidente),
Millionaire Team (Equipo Millonario), o el GET Team (Equipo GET) de Herbalife.
Al poner mis iniciales aqu, certifico bajo pena de perjurio que no firm un Acuerdo de arbitraje para
_______ disputas entre miembros y Herbalife contenido en el Acuerdo de solicitud de membreca fechado en
o despus de septiembre de 2013.
SECCIN IV: RECLAMACIONES DE DEVOLUCIN DE PRODUCTOS
Puede usar esta seccin para presentar una Reclamacin para un Pago de devolucin de productos en intercambio por
devolucin de productos no usados ni abiertos, excluidos los Paquetes Comerciales Internacionales (International
Business Packs) o Minipaquetes Comerciales Internacionales (Mini-International Business Packs) comprados con
ms de un ao de antelacin a la Fecha lmite de entrega.
Para determinar su monto de Pago de devolucin de productos, provea la siguiente informacin en el cuadro a
continuacin para cada producto Herbalife no usado ni abierto que usted desee devolver: (i) nmero de referencia
(Stock Keeping Unit, SKU) del producto Herbalife (SKU del producto); (ii) la fecha aproximada en que compr el
producto (Fecha de compra); y (iii) el precio de compra real pagado por el producto (Precio de compra real). Si usted
necesita espacio adicional, srvase adjuntar una adenda a este Formulario de reclamacin en la que indique la informacin
solicitada para los productos Herbalife adicionales que usted desee regresar.
Si no est en capacidad de proveer el precio de compra real para un producto particular, srvase proveer un Precio de
compra estimado para ese producto. Asumiendo que se suministra toda la otra informacin para ese artculo, el
Administrador de reclamaciones determinar que el monto pagado ser el precio de compra estimado o un 50 % del
Precio sugerido de venta al pblico de Herbalife para el producto en la Fecha de compra, el monto que sea menor.
-2-
*HIBClaimID*
ClaimID

#:3892
N. de referencia
del producto
(SKU)
Fecha de compra
Precio real de compra
Precio estimado de compra
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
_______
Al poner mis iniciales aqu, certifico bajo pena de perjurio que los productos antes indicados no han sido
abiertos ni usados, y que fueron comprados con ms de un ao de antelacin a la Fecha lmite de entrega.
_______
Al poner mis iniciales aqu, certifico bajo pena de perjurio que para cada Precio de compra estimado indicado
anteriormente, no estoy en capacidad de determinar el Precio de compra real para ese artculo.
El Administrador de reclamaciones determinar el monto del pago de devolucin del producto para el que usted pueda ser
elegible con base en la informacin que usted provea en el cuadro anterior y los fondos de conciliacin disponibles. Su
Pago de devolucin de producto puede reducirse con base en la cantidad de fondos disponibles para atender todas las
reclamaciones (consulte la Notificacin del Grupo de demandantes para obtener ms detalles). Para el 2 de marzo
de 2015, usted puede visualizar el monto del Pago de devolucin de producto para el que usted sea elegible (a reserva de
una devolucin adecuada de todos los productos identificados) visitando el Sitio web del Administrador de reclamaciones
en www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com y suministrando su direccin de correo electrnico y el Nmero de
identificacin de Herbalife.
Si la Conciliacin es aprobada por el Tribunal, usted recibir notificacin de la aprobacin y recibir instrucciones sobre
cmo completar su Reclamacin de devolucin de productos. En ese momento, se le ordenar devolver dentro de un
periodo de tiempo determinado los productos Herbalife antes indicados que desee devolver. Luego de que Herbalife haya
procesado su devolucin, se emitir un Pago de devolucin de producto.
SECCIN V: RECLAMACIONES DE OPORTUNIDAD DE NEGOCIO
Usted puede usar esta seccin para presentar reclamaciones para una indemnizacin en efectivo con base en las
prdidas que usted reclame haber sufrido por la compra de Productos aceptables mientras se dedicaba a la
Oportunidad de negocio de Herbalife. Recibir un pago ms alto si devuelve un producto haciendo una Reclamacin
de devolucin de producto que si hace una reclamacin con base en esa compra en virtud de esta seccin.
Para poder presentar una Reclamacin de oportunidad de negocio y que esta sea aceptada, debe certificar que cumple los
siguientes requerimientos de elegibilidad. Si no cumple uno o ms de los siguientes requerimientos, no es elegible para
hacer una Reclamacin de oportunidad de negocio.
_______
Al poner mis iniciales aqu, certifico bajo pena de perjurio que me adher a Herbalife principalmente para
dedicarme a una oportunidad de negocio y no con el motivo principal de consumo personal y/o familiar.
_______
Al poner mis iniciales aqu, certifico bajo pena de perjurio que, al dedicarme a la oportunidad de
negocio de Herbalife, no recuper/gan de vuelta el monto de dinero que gast al comprar el
producto directamente de Herbalife para reventa.
-3-
*HIBClaimID*
ClaimID

#:3893
Solo las compras de Productos aceptables son elegibles para una Reclamacin de oportunidad de negocio. Un Producto
aceptable es un Producto de Herbalife que:
y
usted compr directamente de Herbalife en o despus del 1 abril de 2009;
haya sido comprado con propsito de reventa;
haya sido comprado dentro de los Estados Unidos y haya sido enviado directamente a usted en un lugar en los
Estados Unidos;
usted no haya vendido por mnimo el precio de compra;
no haya sido devuelto a travs del programa de recompra de Herbalife, garanta de satisfaccin de Herbalife, o para el que
usted haya hecho o har una Reclamacin de devolucin de producto en virtud de los trminos de esta Conciliacin.
Srvase indicar la Prdida total estimada que usted haya asumido al vender los Productos aceptables en el espacio que se
provee a continuacin. Su Prdida total estimada es la diferencia entre el monto total que usted pag para Productos
aceptables y los ingresos totales que usted recibi de la venta de dichos productos. Su estimado debe basarse en la mejor
informacin de la que usted disponga con la que usted pueda estar razonablemente seguro de sus prdidas reclamadas.
Prdida total estimada:
_______
Al poner mis iniciales aqu, certifico bajo pena de perjurio que la Prdida estimada total que he indicado es
un estimado de buena fe de las prdidas en que he incurrido al vender los Productos aceptables.
Su Prdida total estimada ser revisada por el Administrador de reclamaciones usando los datos de historial de compras
suministrado por Herbalife para asegurar que su Indemnizacin de reclamaciones de oportunidad de negocio no excede
los lmites establecidos en virtud del Acuerdo de conciliacin. Para obtener una explicacin de cmo se determina su
Indemnizacin de reclamacin de oportunidad de negocio, srvase consultar [Seccin 9 de la Notificacin del Grupo de
demandantes]. Su Indemnizacin por Reclamacin de oportunidad de negocio puede reducirse con base en la cantidad de
fondos disponibles para atender todas las reclamaciones (consulte la Notificacin del Grupo de demandantes para obtener
ms detalles). Para el 2 de marzo de 2015, puede consultar su Indemnizacin de reclamacin de oportunidad de negocio
visitando el Sitio web del Administrador de reclamaciones en la direccin www.HerbalifeClassActionSettlement.com y
suministrando su direccin de correo electrnico y el Nmero de identificacin de Herbalife.
Si la Conciliacin es aprobada por el Tribunal, recibir la notificacin de la aprobacin y se emitir su Indemnizacin de
oportunidad de negocio a menos que usted solicite ser excluido de la Conciliacin a ms tardar el 24 de marzo de 2015.
SECCIN VI: CERTIFICACIN Y FIRMA
Al firmar este Formulario de reclamacin, usted reconoce que el Administrador de reclamaciones puede solicitar a
Herbalife que provea cierta informacin relacionada con su Distribucin de Herbalife, lo que incluye formularios de
impuestos y otros datos financieros, para verificar su Reclamacin.
Certifico bajo pena de perjurio que la informacin contenida en este Formulario de reclamacin es veraz y correcta a mi
leal saber y entender.
Fecha (mm/dd/aaaa):
Firma:
Nombre en letra de imprenta:
-4-
*HIBClaimID*
ClaimID

#:3894
Exhibit E

#:3895
KCC Class Action Services

Bostick v. Herbalife International of America Inc et al.
Exclusion Report
Count
687
ClaimID
10001892001
60003162001
60001543101
10008656101
10010368601
10023295401
10026059701
10026204101
60000147001
60002325801
10033031901
10038939901
10041053401
10050334201
60000346501
10052982301
10054898201
10058211401
10058482201
10059061501
10060775501
60001483601
10072615001
10073502201
10074110101
60003142701
10084337201
60001651401
10094568501
10095585001
10096468001
10097223801
10097684001
10098352201
10098471001
10098702301
60003028601
60003065001
10100515501
10100778401
10104192501
10107561301
60002034001
Last Name
ABRAHAM
ABREU
ACOSTA
ADAMS
AGOVINO
ALBA
ALCAZAR
ALCOCER
ALEXANDER
ALLGEYER
ALMANY
ALVARADO
ALVAREZ
AMMU
ANDERSEN
ANDERSON
ANDRADE
ANGUIANO
ANGULO
ANNETTE
AOCHI-BORDON
ARAYA
ARIZA
ARMENTA
ARMSTRONG
ATCHISON
AVALOS
AVILA
BADILLO
BAEZA
BAILEY
BAIONE
BAKER
BAKER
BAKKEM
BALBANEDA
BALDRIDGE
BALL
BALLARE
BALLEW
BARAJAS
BARKEY
BARNUM
First Name
TIFFANY
ALLAN
YADIRA
SHAWNDA
KATHLEEN
GUILLERMINA
MARTA E
JOSEFINA
ALICIA
EILEEN
DAVID
MANUELA
ALEXANDRA
RAMA SUNDARI
GLORIA
KALEENA R
LUCINDA
LUIS A
DELFINO
HUNTER
SHINOBU
JOSE M
PABLO
CARLOS
DEBBI S
LISA
AARON
ROSA MARIA
MARIA DE LOS ANGELES
MARIA C
ANGEL D
DAVID
BRIAN L
SUSAN M
KELLY M
MARIA
HAZEL
MYA
KAREN E
TAMMY
CLAUDIA
ERICA N
EVERETT

#:3896
ClaimID
60000661201
60003167501
10125345001
10125594901
10126621201
10129762201
60003062801
10134060601
10138949801
10139446901
10139613201
10141090601
10141316601
10141785801
60000059101
10142707401
60003036601
10142918601
60003147101
10147389801
60002759801
10150675201
60000532501
10152955701
10153962901
60001513601
10155945801
60001314101
10168915901
10166586601
60003153001
10169638301
10169904901
10173826201
10175281701
10176121101
10176744401
60002556001
10177970701
10180880001
10181440901
10182537701
60001852001
10188797801
10191581001
10196261701
60000726201
10198267701
10200245901
10201969101
10205079001
Last Name
BARTOSH
BASS
BEHN
BEJAR
BELL
BENAVIDEZ
BERGESON
BERGMAN
BETANCUR
BEVER
BEYER
BILLS
BINION
BISCH
BISHOP
BLACK
BLACK
BLACKMAN
BLOCK
BOFF
BOLER
BONILLA
BONO
BOROK
BOTELLO
BOWLIN
BOYD
BRANDENBURG
BROWN
BROWN
BROWN
BROWNELL
BRUCE
BUITRAGO
BURGEN
BURKE
BURNETT
BURY
BURZOTTA
BYRD
CABALLERO
CABRAL
CABRERA
CALDERON
CALVILLO
CAMPER
CAMPOS
CAMPOS
CANCINO
CANO
CARBAJAL
First Name
JAMES
TAMICA
JAIME B
MARIA
PATRICIA A
SOPHIA R
RICHARD B
ERIC D
ARELYS
DEBRA K
JULIE
KATHLEEN S
KASEY
KATIE L
ANNETTE
MICHELLE D
CAROLYN
AINKA A
WAYNE
LEON C
JAMES
MARTHA
VINCENT
ADAM
MARIA C
JAMES
ANGELA D
DONALD
RONALD L
AKEMI M
ALICIA
DEBORAH W
ALICE F
HEYSOL I
SHERRY
DONALD F
JEROME
DAVID
ANTONINO
ELLIOT
ANCELMA
ALICIA A
ARISDELCI
NATALIA
GERARDO
MARLA H
JUDY
ROSA E
OSCAR
MARIA E
DANIEL R

#:3897
ClaimID
10205956101
10207136601
60003144901
10209523101
10209695801
10210483901
60000348701
60003165301
70000332001
10231147001
10229672801
60000490101
10233755001
60001445001
10236114901
60001794701
10238353401
60000439901
10241157801
10245022501
70003475401
10249189601
10250466001
10253737901
10253548601
10259740601
10263682501
60001300601
70000500601
10267230101
10270479001
10271543901
10272029001
10273375201
10279360801
10281534301
10282387001
10285685001
10291083201
10293063601
10296172401
10296971101
60000170001
10312389101
10315476001
10317529501
10320765001
10321820801
10321998501
10322954101
10323547401
Last Name
CARCAMO ORTIZ
CARDENAS
CARDOZA
CARE
CAREY
CARLOS
CARPENTER
CARTER
CASTILLO
CASTILLO
CASTILLO
CASTLLO
CASTRO
CASTRO
CASTRO
CAVASOS
CAVINESS
CEBRERO
CELEDON
CERVANTES
CHAINAY
CHANDARLIS
CHAPMAN
CHAVEZ
CHAVEZ
CHERIYAN
CHRISTENSEN
CHRISTENSEN
CIBRIAN
CISNEROS
CLAYTON
CLINESMITH
COATES
COFFIN
CONDON
CONTRERAS
CONTRERAS
COPELAND
CORONEL
CORTAZAR
CORTEZ
CORTINO
CRANE
CRUZ BARCENAS
CUEVAS
CUNNINGHAM
DALE
DAN
DANFORTH
DANIELSON
DARIUS-RICHARDS
First Name
ELDYN
LUIS A
SARAH
ANITA S
SAMANTHA M
CRIZAM C
ANDREA
DANIEL
JOSE
VERONICA
MARIA DEL ROSARIO
ERAN
GISELA
DANIELA
TERESA
ANGELITA
BRUCE H
YESENIA
ALICIA
MARLEN
RITA
MICHAEL A
MARYLAN M
DORA C
CRISTINA
SUJA
JERRY R
JENNIFER
SOCORO
JESUS T
SANDRA
JONNA M
KAMIE D
SARA A
CARA
FELIPE
MARIA
PATSY A
ESTELA M
WENDY
MONICA E
MITCHEL L
SHANNON
MAGALY
ANA
KENYA D
CECILE D
RYAN
PORTIA ELAINE
SUSAN
DEBROAH L

#:3898
ClaimID
10323735501
60002395001
10329336001
10331046001
60001643401
60000208701
10347013001
70003558801
10351620701
10351679701
60003092301
60000920201
60002758701
10366231501
60002391701
60001195101
60003171101
10374975501
10378054301
60000144801
10380130301
10380455901
10381372001
10382529001
10382528901
60002393901
60002183101
60003025301
10383923901
60000088601
60003071901
10386350301
60001624101
60003154001
10390845601
10394229401
10396894501
60003044601
60000345401
60003116501
60002705501
60001077701
10419866701
10421535501
60002869201
60003043501
60001430401
60002717901
10426273401
10426720301
60000875301
Last Name
DAROTITHY
DAVILA
DE ARMAS
DE LA CRUZ
DEASE
DEMARCUS
DENNIS
DIAL
DIAZ
DIAZ
DIETZ
DLUGOPOLSKI
DOMINGUEZ
DOMINGUEZ
DORSEY
DRESSLER
DUNAGAN
DUNCANSON
DURHAM
EAKMAN
EATON
EBRAHIM
ECKMAN
EDWARDS
EDWARDS
EISCHEID
EISENBERG
EISENHARD
EKSUZIAN
ELDRIDGE
ELKINS
ELLIS
ENGLISH
EPPARD
ERICKSON
ESCOBAR
ESPARZA
ESPINAL
ESPINOZA
ESTIGARRIBIA
ESTRADA
EUBANK
FERNANDEZ
FERRANDO
FERREIRA
FIALLOS
FIERRO
FIGUEROA
FILSON
FINLEY
FLICK-NARMORE
First Name
SANDRA P
ROSARIO
RHODERICK G
FRANCY J
SHELLEY
BRIAN
MICHELLE S
JOHN
CHARLOTTE AURORA
CLAUDIA
ANNA
PAMELA
JESUS
RUTH
SUSAN
JAMES
MAUREEN
LAN
HARLEY N
JANET
BARBARA J
EZZAT
MONICA B
KIMBERLY L
KIMBERLY L
CAROL
ELI
JOANNE
CYNTHIE E
CATHERINE
ROSALIND H
L KAREN
JANET
BILLIE
BRANDI L
MARIA
LETICIA
EVA GRACIELA
PALMIRA
HUGO
HAYDE
KAYE
LEONOR
KARLA M
DANIEL
MARIO
GRICELDA
MARIA
RICHELLE A
DONNA R
SUSAN

#:3899
ClaimID
60002620101
60003130301
60001124801
10441398001
10442371701
10448403201
10449042101
10449119001
10449518201
10450021901
10450509601
10450780901
10450939901
10452146601
10452494701
60003077401
10460452901
10462605701
10463080201
60001821401
10467553601
60001466501
60003170001
10469645001
10489513501
10490181001
10487621901
10482668001
10470890601
10491637001
10495099701
60003030001
10497281601
60000843601
10501475801
10502472701
10504532901
60003072001
10507445701
60002212001
60003117601
10513709101
60003040201
60002881901
60003169701
10532566101
60002905001
10525463001
60003115401
10544781001
60003164201
Last Name
FLIETH
FLORES
FOATE
FOLEY
FONTANEZ
FRANK
FRASER
FRAUSTO
FRAZIER
FREEMAN
FREISINGER
FRESCAS
FREY
FROST
FRYE
GALLAEDO
GALLAGHER
GALLEGOS ZACARIAS
GALOPE
GAMEZ
GARBER
GARCIA
GARCIA
GARCIA
GARCIA
GARCIA
GARCIA
GARCIA
GARCIA
GARCIA DOMINGUEZ
GARMON
GARRISON
GARZA
GAUDENCIO
GEESMAN
GEORGE
GIBBS
GILLESPIE
GILMOUR
GLENN
GOMEZ
GOMEZ
GOMEZ
GONZALES
GONZALES
GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ
GORDAN
GORDON
GORTON
First Name
MICHAEL
MARLENY
LISA
CHRIS M
TERESA
SONIA J
PHYLLIS M
ALICIA
TERRELL D
INGRID H
JOYCE A
ERIN
PEGGY L
AFONZA C
WILLIAM C
ANTONIO
JANICE
ROSA MARIA
AUDREY A
MARA ISABEL
JOANN C
GUADALUPE
DEYSI
ANGELITA
TATYANA
VICTOR
ROSA
MARIA ESTHER
BRENDA A
ESTELA
PAIGE
LEE
JUANITA E
CELIA
ISAAC
JEROME
AUDIE J
JILL
JANET L
SAMUEL B
PAVEL
ANA L
MARIA
CORINA
SALLY
JORGE
STEPHANIE
AGUSTINA
ARMANNI
CYNTHIA S
MICHAEL

#:3900
ClaimID
60000166301
60003026401
10547821001
10552709901
60001261501
10553557601
10554120501
10558496401
10568106401
10572039201
60003107401
10579325501
60000098801
60001704001
10582627301
60000074001
10588388801
10591456301
10591779501
10592394101
60001076601
10593406901
60001289601
10593558001
60000146001
60002260801
10598631801
10600570401
10622361601
10612212501
60002479301
10626835101
10627934801
10627829001
10627905101
10631554701
10633828601
10635556901
60003101901
10640031901
60002959301
60003168601
60003149301
60000042301
60001580601
10646525901
60000405001
10650519101
10650540301
60003143801
60000730901
Last Name
GOTTLIEB
GRAHAM
GRAMOWSKI
GREMS
GRIECO
GRIFFIN
GRIMALDI
GUDENKAUF
GUTIERREZ
GUTIERREZ
GUZMAN
HACKMAN
HALE
HALL
HAMEL
HANSEN
HARRIS
HASTINGS
HATFIELD
HAVLICEK
HAWKINS
HAYES
HAYES
HAYHURST
HEIMAN
HENDERSON
HENRY
HERNADEZ
HERNANDEZ
HERNANDEZ
HERNANDEZ
HERNESMAN
HERRERA
HERRERA
HERRERA
HERRERA VASQUEZ
HIDROGO
HILL
HO
HOKANSON
HOLLIDAY
HOLMES
HOLMQUIST
HOOVER
HORN
HOWLETT
HUAMANI
HUGHES
HUGHES
HUME
HURTADO PEREZ
First Name
MICHAEL
DEBORA
BRUCE M
VALERIE R
KATHLEEN
WYNNETTE C
LEEANN J
KELLY
ANA I
MAYELA
ISABEL
LUZ F
CYNTHIA
SHARON
BETTY
JOAN
DOREEN D
AMANDA G
VERONICA
MYRA
KRISTEN
MARIA B
SCOTT
SANDRA
RHONDA
DARYL
JORDAN E
JANET
SANTOS RAFAEL
JUAN J
LIBRADA
RAYMOND J
DEYSI
CRISTINA A
DEBBIE C
SAMUEL ALEJANDRO
MARIA E
NANCY A
MARY
MEGHAN C
MONICA
TERESA
LINDA
CAROLYN
TAMARA
TERRI
JIM
PEGGY J
ROBYNE L
LINDA
ESTHER

#:3901
ClaimID
60003118701
10655117601
10663641801
10663992401
60003161001
60000462801
10667506001
10669036001
10669292601
60003033301
10672275001
10674673001
60000838901
10676252701
10682291301
10686258301
60000916601
60001735701
60003166401
10693326701
10700625001
10702735501
10703245401
60000502001
10703703801
60003104101
10706085101
10706746801
10707888001
60003135801
10712498101
60001477801
60003079601
10716191601
60001709501
60002784901
60000237101
10719130101
60003091201
10720658401
10721085001
10721150601
60000986901
60003150701
10723705201
60003152901
60001629601
60000627001
10733415001
60001535101
10736109701
Last Name
HYRE
HYTCHE
JABLONSKY
JACKOLA
JACKSON
JAIME
JAIMES
JANE
JANKOVIC
JARRELL
JAUREGUI-VARGAS
JENSEN
JEWELL, II
JILL
JIMISON
JOHNSON
JONES
JORDAN
JORDAN
JOYCE
KARCZEWSKI
KEAN
KEENE
KEGERREIS
KEIVER-HEWETT
KELEMEN
KENSIL
KERSTEN
KIBBLE
KING
KLEIN
KLEIN
KNOLLHOFF
KOPETS
KORBER
KROPF
KRUG
KRULL
KULLMAN
KURTZ
KWOCK
KWONG
KYLE
LAGUNAS PALACIOS
LAHTI
LANGE
LARA
LARSON
LAUER
LAVERTY
LAZO
First Name
MELISSA
KATHRYN
HEATHER
ROBERT E
BOBBI JO
YANET
LORENA
MORGAN
ANDJELKA
MARY
REBECCA
LESLEE RAE
PORTER
GOLDEN N
JERMY L
MICHAEL
LEIGH
LEON
JOSEPH
PATRICK M
SARAID A
SAMUEL NATHAN
JO R
LEIGH
GWENDOLYN J
LISA
LISA A
MARY B
BETTY L
PAUL
AMY L
DAVID
DANIEL
LILIYA
DENNIS
ELMA
TIMOTHY
TAMMIE L
MICHELENE
BETH A
DOUGLAS
MAN-FAI
NANCY
BEATRIZ
STEPHANIE D
JENNA
MARIA L
LYN
JOHN D
JAMES
MAGALI D

#:3902
ClaimID
60001607001
60003155101
10740171001
60001620801
10743044701
60000086401
60001633201
60001378601
60003112101
60000364701
60003055901
10754880001
60002118301
10755985701
60003133601
60002215301
60002639101
10764218901
10778654001
10764367401
10781532101
10778165701
10773897101
10785838101
60002877201
10790857801
10791169301
10791718001
60001940001
10794855201
10795714001
10799740001
10803202401
60001036901
10805190001
10809429701
10814232201
60000607701
10820532001
60002537701
10821748601
10823386801
60002533301
10825887701
60001399001
10850894801
10839768301
60000038701
10858189501
60003067201
10859147501
Last Name
LEBLANC
LEDEZMA
LEE
LEGG
LEMONS
LEPINE GARCIA
LESSOW
LEVANDER
LEWIS
LEWIS
LINDBERG
LINDELL
LIPKA
LIPPI
LIZARRAGA
LLIVIZACA (CESPEDES)
LOAYES
LOPEZ
LOPEZ
LOPEZ
LOPEZ
LOPEZ
LOPEZ
LORENZ
LORENZO
LUCARI
LUCAS
LUCERO
LUCIANI
LUMBRERAS
LUNA
LYTLE
MACINTOSH
MACLUKIEWICZ
MADRIGAL
MALAGON
MANDRAS
MANJI
MARICHE
MARIN
MARIN
MARMOL-MARTINEZ
MARQUEZ
MARRERO
MARTIN
MARTINEZ
MARTINEZ
MAST
MATOS
MATTHEWS
MATURINO
First Name
LYNN
MARIA
KAREN R
DENISE
DOYLE R
PIERRE CARLOS
CINDY
JENELL
KRISTEL
LINDA
WANDA
JOY M
DENISE
EDNA M
BLANCA
ROSA
LUCIA
ADONIS F
OFELIA
AIDA N
TERESA
NANCY
LETICIA Y
JOYCE J
DORKA
JESSICA
MICHAEL F
GUILLERMINA
ROBERTA
RICARDO
HELEN U
FREDERICK N
GARY R
KATARZYNA
MARIA
MARIA
MARIA L
RYHANA
MAYRA
CARMEN
YOLANDA
IRWIN M
MARIA
BREGMA J
GLEN
VICTOR M
JORGE
DENNIS
MARISOL
CANDACE
MARIA D

#:3903
ClaimID
10861230201
60003080001
10861963101
60003041301
60001582801
10863889301
10864664601
60000614601
10869487201
10870636901
60003140501
10871844001
10874121701
60001470101
60003056001
10873223001
60003127801
10884892901
10902864801
10904368601
10905532901
10906912201
10906939001
10908104301
10908314301
60001039101
10911775001
10911864901
60001326501
10914521501
60001032501
10920769501
10922203901
60000427501
10931726901
10930761601
10932417101
10934107701
60001722201
60000817401
60002181001
60000317001
60000360301
10951515801
60000240701
60003084301
60000216701
60003123401
10966058401
60000700301
10967612901
Last Name
MAYES
MAYNE
MAYORGA
MAZO
MCCALL
MCCALLUM
MCCLEERY
MCCLENNY
MCKENNEY
MCLEOD
MCNEIL
MCQUEEN
MEDINA
MEDINA
MEDINA
MEDINA
MEJORADO
MELLEN
MEYERS
MEZESKI
MIDDLEBROOKS
MILES
MILES
MILLER
MILLER
MINNS
MIOT
MIRABELLA
MIRAKIAN
MIRICH
MOLINA-AGUILA
MONARREZ
MONIZ
MONTERROSO
MOORE
MOORE
MORA
MORALES
MORENO
MORGAN
MORRISON
MORRISON
MORYN
MOSCOSO HERRERA
MRACZEK
MURIEL
MYLES
NAJARRO
NAJERA
NAQUIN
NARVAEZ
First Name
LYNN M
DEBORAH
ROGER
JOHANA
CONSTANCE
BEVERLY J
KAREN N
KATRINA
JUDITH C
JENNIFER L
JUDY
CHRIS
EVA
MARIA
FEDERICO
ALICIA
JENNIFER
DARLENE
KIMBERLY A
ANNA
CHRIS J
AMY R
DEANNA
COLETTE
DONOVAN D
LARS
MARIE
ISENIJA J
MELISA
ROCK
LIZET
MANUELA
MARIA AS
MIREYA
REBECCA P
ANTHONY D
CLAUDIA
ANA
FRANCISCO
PATRICIA
DORA
HEATH
DIANE
WILMER OMAR
THOMAS
ANA
JANCEY
BRENDA
RODOLFO
CRAIG
GRISELDA

#:3904
ClaimID
10974874801
60003049001
10976873501
60003160901
10978555101
60000063801
10982507001
10985200001
60002140101
10986850001
10991431401
10992481201
10995691601
10997350101
10998152201
60002824001
60003125601
11007573001
70000877901
11010494801
11016340001
11025721201
11026683301
60003052601
60003035501
11037909301
11039236001
11040918801
11040959001
11044751701
11048469101
11048924001
60003081001
60003086501
11051278901
60003137001
11056330001
60000963201
60001843001
11077032801
60000072901
11080728501
60003095601
60003100801
11091434001
11091949001
11092558001
60003139101
11102619201
11104607501
60003105201
Last Name
NELSON
NELSON
NEULS
NEWELL
NGUYEN
NIEDER
NIEVES
NOLASCO JR
NORBERG
NORWARD
NYDEREK
O'BRIEN
O'CONNELL
OJEDA
OLAIS
OLIVARES
ONEY
ORELLANA
OROZCO
OROZCO
ORTIZ
OWSLEY
PACE
PACHECO
PADILLA
PANUCO JIMENEZ
PAREDES
PARKER
PARKER
PATEL
PAXTOR
PAYNE
PEARSON
PECINA
PEDERSON
PENA DE LA TORRE
PENALOZA DELEBRA
PEREZ
PEREZ
PERRY
PETSCH
PHELPS
PINEDA
PLAISTED
PLEASANT
PLUTZKER
POLACH
POLANCO
PRICE
PRUNEAU
PULIDO
First Name
AMY J
MELISSA
KERRI A
DEBORAH
AN H
ANGELA
JIMY
FEDERICO
JEFFREY
JAIME M
MARY LOU
SHIRLEY A
RENEE J
JOAQUIN
YAMEL
DEYANIRA
SUSAN
LUIS A
GUSTAVO
LUISA
ELSA
CYNTHIA A
DONNA
DENNIS
VILMA
BRENDA VERENICE
GERONIMA
LISA G
MEGAN E
BHAGVATI
PAULA
MICHAEL S
ROSIE
MARIBEL
LORELEI R
JOSE
CLAUDIA
VICTOR H
MARINA
HOLLIE R
NANCY
PHYLLIS
MARIBEL
ERIN
CHARLIE H
PAUL
MEGAN M
YSABEL
RUTH C
THOMAS
MARINA

#:3905
ClaimID
11107370401
60001233101
11116467901
60000795401
11128346201
60001825801
60000551801
11126594001
60002984401
11139330901
11145187501
11146861901
60000884401
11148222701
60002594501
11154890101
11156494301
60001817801
11159551401
60003054801
60002835301
11178033001
60000804001
11182222101
11185367901
11186957201
11189535201
60001479001
60000933701
11207239201
11199481001
11200861601
11190769001
11198395201
60002853501
60001332301
60000047801
60000328301
60002166001
60003073001
11230728001
11232756401
11235940101
60001981801
60001306101
11254216501
60003106301
60003064001
11280677601
60001960301
60003024201
Last Name
PURVES
QUINONES
RAFAEL
RAMIREZ
RAMIREZ
RAMIREZ
RAMIREZ
RAMIREZ
RAMOS
RANGEL
REDUS
REHAUME
REISINGER
REMACHE
RESENDEZ
REYES
REYES
REYES
REYES DE CONTRERAS
RIVAS
RIVERA
RIVERA
ROBERTS
ROBERTS
ROBLES
ROCHA
RODRIGUES
RODRIGUEZ
RODRIGUEZ
RODRIGUEZ
RODRIGUEZ
RODRIGUEZ
RODRIGUEZ
RODRIGUEZ
RODRIGUEZ GARCIA
ROETHKE
ROGERS
ROGERS
ROMERO
ROQUE PANTON
ROSER
ROWLAND
RUELAS
RUIZ
SALAZAR
SALDIVAR
SAMFORD
SANCHEZ
SANTA CRUZ
SANTAFERRARA
SANTIAGO
First Name
PATRICIA L
YESENIA
VERONICA
MARTIN
PATRICIA
ANGEL P
JUANA
MARIA NATIVIDAD
CECILIA
IDALIA
MARSHA L
GEORGE H
DAN
ADREANA J
CIDALIA
INES ANDINA
MARIA
NOEMI
ERIKA DEL CARMEN
OSCAR
ROBERTO
NANCY L
AMY
NACI
JOSUE
IRMA C
CHRISTINA A
MARIA
MELINDA
RUBI
JULISSA
LUZ ELBA
AMY M
JORGE
ANAIS
JENNIFER
REED
ANGELA
TERESA
RAISA
JAMIE L
ROBERT
TERESA
ROCIO
ANGELA
AURELIA
JAMES
MYRNA
MARIA ESMERALDA
TERI
GISSEL

#:3906
ClaimID
11283194101
11293140601
11293709301
11295149101
11295602601
60003151801
60000199101
11297995601
11299013701
11301054001
60000553001
60003156201
60002080601
11309188601
11312683901
11316709001
11317067101
11318912601
11320790601
11321482001
11322514301
60000101801
11324051001
60001697701
11324939101
11330082701
11329040801
60000096601
60001764101
60001763001
11337182201
11338152901
11345913001
11346973101
11347433701
60001673001
11349490701
11349780501
60002130001
11354616601
11355141101
11355894601
11355986001
11357506301
60003039901
60000760401
60000189001
11366955001
60000217801
60000107301
11373407401
Last Name
SANTIAGO
SCARBROUGH
SCHAR
SCHMIDT
SCHNEIDER
SCHROEDER
SCHULTZ
SCHWERTEL
SCOTT
SEGOVIA
SENNE
SERNA
SETU
SHARER
SHIRLEY
SILLERUD
SILVA
SILVA
SIMMONS ARZU
SIMPSON
SINGH
SIRIGNANO
SKALA
SLAGOSKI
SLAUGHTER
SMITH
SMITH
SMITH
SMITH
SOLONOSKI
SOMERS
SORIA
SPEEDE
SPOFFORD
SPROULL
STAMM
STANTON
STARKS
STEFFES
STOKER
STONE
STRADER
STRAMA
STUBER
STYRON
SUBBIONDO
SUMRALL
TALLMAN
TANG
TAYLOR
TAYLOR
First Name
GIOVANNI
GLORIA A
STEPHANIE D
KAREN
ANNE C
JOYCE
DEBRA
RONALD T
ROBERT A
MARISELA
SUSAN
SONIA
IOSEFA SETU
MARY CHARLENE
DOYLE S
LINDSEY R
BLANCA BARBARA
RUDY S
TASHA
BRENDA C
DELIA R
JESSICA
JARED J
SALLY
ANGELA R
SKIPPER
MARK A
JO ANN
BRIANA
MICHAEL
SUSAN F
MARIA M
JOSE M
TOM
CHRIS
GREGORY
THARSILLA C
KESHANA N
CONNIE S
ROD
ROD J
JENNIFER S
MARIA
CYNTHIA
DIANE
DENNIS
BOB
KATHY S
QI
SONJA
TAVARES L

#:3907
ClaimID
60002370201
60003053701
60002106001
11374683001
11374763901
11376213601
60003090101
60000930401
60002205101
60000065001
11384587001
60003124501
11386563601
60003148201
60003069401
11393449001
60003070801
60000085301
60003134701
11410989801
60003075201
11412840601
11413789401
60003034401
60002335001
60000562001
11434315901
11437362001
60000521201
60003027501
11444311701
11449894501
11451101901
11455433001
11457163601
11456609401
11461807001
60003126701
60003146001
60001949801
11467277501
60002152501
60002129601
11476072001
60000678001
60000266601
60000417301
11483645001
11485770201
11486609001
11486621101
Last Name
TAYLOR
TAYLOR
TEALE
TEJEDA
TEJEDA
TELLO
TERRY
THEIS
THOMAS
THOMAS
THUECKS
TIETYEN
TINO
TONDREAU
TORRES
TORRES
TOVAR-TORRES
TRUMAN
TUCKER
TUCKER
TURNER
TURNER
TYLER
UMEH
UPCHURCH
VALENZUELA
VARGAS
VARGAS
VARGAS
VAUGHN
VAZQUEZ
VEGA
VELA
VELAZQUEZ
VELEZ
VELEZ
VERNESS
VIERA
VIKE
VILLA
VILLAFANA
VILLALVAZO
VILLANUEVA
VITAL
VLLE
WALLACE
WALTH
WARD
WATERS
WATT
WATTERS
First Name
LAURA
MARIA
LINDA
ALONDRA
FLORA
PERLA
DEBORAH
BONNIE
ADAM
RAYE
TOM J
NOREEN
DIANE V
MILDRED
PAULA
BLANCA
JONICE
KIM
MEREDITH
CHRISTINE
CRYS
LAWRENCE E
LA'KESHIA L
VIVIAN
BRIANNE
YOCELYN
ALEXANDRA
RICHARD
KARLA
JANET
BARBARA LIZ
OSCAR W
VALENTIN V
LILIA E
ROLANDO
CARMEN
KAY L
JUAN
KELSEY/SHERRY
ENRIQUE
ALMA Y
MAGDALENA
OLGA
MARIA GUADALUPE
ELVA
TARA
CHERIE K
EDNA M
TAMMY
VIOLET
DANA C

#:3908
ClaimID
60001525001
60000111001
60003088701
11489816901
11493655901
60000850501
11493427701
60003098901
60000078401
60000841401
60003083201
60000121101
900007001
11502489001
11502780401
11504878901
11505241001
11506559301
11508758801
11508760601
11510196201
11513902301
60003122301
60002243701
11518061801
11518659101
900005201
11524852301
11527167301
60001134001
60002516201
11532973001
Last Name
WAYMAN
WEATROWSKI
WEIR
WELLIVER
WHITE
WHITE
WHITE
WHITMER
WIEGAND
WILLIAMS
WILLIAMS
WILLIAMS
WILLIAMS
WILSON
WILSON
WISE
WITMAN
WONG
WORM
WORM
WROBLESKI
YATES
YEPES
YODER
YURIVILCA
ZACCARELLO
ZARATE-GOMEZ
ZAVALA
ZELKO
ZHUNGUR
ZUNIGA
ZUNUN
First Name
BILL
JEAN
CARLYE
JEROME A
LAUETA M
MELODY
JEFF
LEUMA
GLEN
LARRY
WALTER
VALERI
FRANKIE
GABRIEL
KELLY A
MATT
KATRINA P
ELDON
MARY ANN
PAUL C
CHRISTINA M
EMILY A
GLORIA
IVA
MAYOK
CAROLE
AVELINA
ERIKA
SANDRA C
DINORAH
MATILDE
SILVINO

#:3909
Exhibit F

#:3910
KCC Class Action Services

Bostick v. Herbalife International of America Inc et al.
Objection Report
Count
18
ClaimID
10005277001
10088205501
10188753001
10277344001
10292167201
10319136701
10403534101
10478274201
10737763901
10849046401
10882558901
11034853901
11044411501
11073076801
11188709401
11365850301
900008301
60001554401
Last Name
ACOSTA
AVILA
CALDERON
COLON
CORREA
CUTZAL
ESTALA
GARCIA
LEON
MARTINEZ
MELCHOR
PALMA
PASTRAN
PEREZ
RODENSKY
TAFOYA
TORRES
ULLOA
First Name
ELVIA
SABAS
MIGUEL A
FELIPE
ELIZABETH
MARIA CONSUELO
JUANA
JOSE G
VALENTINA
ROSSINA I
GILBERTO
MARTIL A
YADER A
SUSANA
ERIC J
JOSE
OLIVIA
JULIO
Case 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-SH Document 130 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 56 Page ID #:3659
1
2
3
4
5

Fabian & Clendenin
Telephone: (801) 531-8900
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Telephone: (805) 962-9495
13
14
15
16
17
18

citizen, et al.,
19
20
PLAINTIFF,
vs.

IN SUPPORT OF FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT
21
22
23
24
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL
OF AMERICA, INC., a Nevada
Corporation, et al.,
DEFENDANTS.

Time: 1:30 p.m.
Courtroom: 14
25
26
27
28
1
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
3
4
5
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
II. CLASS NOTICE COMPLIED WITH THE COURTS ORDER, RULE 23(c),
AND DUE PROCESS ............................................................................................... 4
A. Direct Notice ................................................................................................. 5
B. Notice Available at the Settlement Website ................................................. 6
C. Class Counsel Responded to and Advised Claimants .................................. 7
D. Late Claimants .............................................................................................. 7
10
E. Claim Amounts ............................................................................................. 8
11
F. Notice Satisfied the Requirements of Rule 23(c) and (e) ............................. 8
12
13
III. FOR PURPOSES OF SETTLEMENT, THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23 ....................................................... 9
14
IV. THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE ........... 9
15
A. Strength of Plaintiffs Case ......................................................................... 12

B. The Expense and Likely Duration Absent a Settlement ............................. 14
C. The Risk of Certifying and Maintaining Class Action Status Throughout
the Trial Warrants Approval .................................................................... 14
D. The Amount Offered in Settlement ............................................................ 16
F. Recommendation and Views of Experienced Class Counsel ..................... 20
G. Governmental Input into the Settlement Agreement .................................. 20
16
17
18
19
H.The Positive Reaction of the Class to the Settlement .................................. 21

1.Few Class Members Objected to the Settlement .......................................... 21
2.The Settlement Response Rate Was In Line with Other Class Actions Given
the Challenges of this Litigation .............................................................. 22
20
21
22
23
24
25
V.
THE OBJECTIONS TO THE SETTLEMENT LACK MERIT .................... 24

A. The Business Opportunity Fund Compensates for Legally Cognizable
Losses ............................................................................................................... 24
26
B. The Brooks Objectors Misunderstand the Law, the Facts and the Risks
Related to the Packaging & Handling and FedEx Freight Charge Claims ...... 28
27
C. All Class Members Who Did Not Agree to Arbitrate Can Make Claims. . 32
28
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
D. Consequential Damages Are Not Recoverable Under the Courts Prior

Ruling or Any Theory of Restitution ............................................................... 33
F. The Corporate Reforms Provides Substantial Benefit to the Class to the
Detriment of Herbalife ..................................................................................... 39
1. The Changes to Herbalifes Corporate Policies Address Allegations in the
Amended Complaint and are Valuable to the Settlement Class. ............. 40
2. The Timing or Duration of the Corporate Reforms does not Diminish Their
Value. ....................................................................................................... 44
G. The Release Is Appropriate......................................................................... 46
H. Class Notice and Claims Process Satisfies Due Process ............................ 47
I. Cy Pres Recipient........................................................................................ 47
9
10
VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 48
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
2
CASES
Arnold v. Fitflop USA, LLC, No. 11-CV-0973 W KSC, 2014 WL

1670133, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014) ........................................................... 46
Astiana v. Kashi Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127624 (S.D. Cal. 2014) .................. 7
Baghdasarian v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2009 WL 4823368 (C.D. Cal.

Dec. 9, 2009)................................................................................................. 28, 29
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 485 F. Supp. 610 (N.D. Cal. 1979) .................................... 20
Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 12-CV-01831-LHK, 2014
WL 5794873, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2014) .................................................. 30
Bruno v. Quten Research Inst., LLC, No. SACV 11-00173 DOC EX,
2013 WL 990495, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013) ........................................... 46
Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ............ 11, 20, 22
Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) ..................... 10, 20
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) .................................... 15, 21, 30
Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326 (5th Cir. 1977) ...................................................... 9
Day v. AT&T Corp., 63 Cal. App. 4th 325 (1998) .................................................. 30
Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2012)........................................ 17, 18
Dennis v. Kellogg Co., No. 09-CV-1786-L WMC, 2013 WL 6055326,
at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2013) .......................................................................... 39
19
Dremak v. Iovate Health Scis. Group, Inc. (In re Hydroxycut Mktg. &
Sales Practices Litig.), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162106 (S.D. Cal.
2014) ..................................................................................................................... 7
20
Ellis v. Naval Air Rework Facility, 87 F.R.D. 15 (N.D. Cal. 1980) ........................ 20
21
F.T.C. v. BurnLounge, Inc., 753 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................ 12, 15
22
Fisher v. A.G. Becker Paribas, Inc., 791 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1986) ........................ 32
23
Fulford v. Logitech, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29042 (N.D. Cal.
2010) ..................................................................................................................... 7
24
25
26
27
28
Guerrero v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C 12-04026 WHA, 2014

WL 4351113 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2014) ........................................................ 45, 46
Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117927 (N.D.
Cal. 2011) ............................................................................................................. 7
Henderson v. Gruma Corp., No. CV 10-04173 AHM AJWX, 2011
WL 1362188 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011) ............................................................. 38
iii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
In re Amway Corp., 93 F.T.C. 618 (1979)............................................................... 43

In re Apple iPhone/iPod Warranty Litig., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
64573, 40 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................................ 48
In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th
Cir.2011) ............................................................................................................. 10
In re Dry Max Pampers Litig., 724 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2013) ................................. 45
In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir.2000) ................. 10, 12, 19
In re NASDAQ MarketMakers Antitrust Litig., 187 F.R.D. 465
(S.D.N.Y. 1998) .................................................................................................. 22
In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., No. 08-MDL-01952, 2011 WL
6209188 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 13, 2011) ................................................................. 24
In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009)................................................ 29
Jermyn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., No. 08 Civ. 214 CM, 2012 WL
2505644, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ......................................................................... 24
LaGarde v. Support.com, Inc., 2013 WL 1283325 (N. D.Cal. March
26, 2013) ............................................................................................................. 12
Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012). ............................... 17, 39, 48
Lanovaz v. Twinings North America, Inc., 2014 WL 1652338, Case
No. C-12-02646-RMW (N.D. Cal. April 24, 2014) ........................................... 30
Larsen v. Trader Joes Co., No. C 11-05188 SI, 2012 WL 5458396
(N.D. Cal. June 14, 2012) ................................................................................... 38
18
Li v. EFT Holdings, Inc., 2:13-cv-08832-DSF-CW, Dkt No. 121; 2015

U.S. Lexis 1065 at *4, (C.D.Cal. 2015) ............................................................. 33
19
Linney v. Cellular Alaska Pship, 151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998)..................... 16, 19
20
Marshall v. Holiday Magic, Inc., 550 F.2d 1173 (9th Cir. 1977) ........................... 21
21
Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir.Cal.2012) ........................ 12
22
Miller v. Ghiradelli Chocolate Co., No. 12-CV-04936, 2015 WL

758094 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2015) ................................................................ 45, 46
23
24
Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2003) ....................................................... 11
25
Moore v. Verizon Commc'ns Inc., No. C09-1823 SBA, 2013 WL

4610764 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2013) ............................................................. 39, 45
26
Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................ 10, 14, 17, 47
27
Natl Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523

(C.D. Cal.2004) ................................................................................ 10, 20, 21, 38
28
iv
Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Commn, 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir.
1982) ............................................................................................................... 9, 11
Parks v. Portnoff Law Assoc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 244 (E.D. Pa. 2003) ...................... 24
Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., 772 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2014) ............................................. 45
Rodriguez v. W. Publ'g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) .............................. 8, 10
Searle v. Wyndham International, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 4th 1327 (Cal.
Ct. App. 2002) .................................................................................................... 28
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Siber v. Mabon, 18 F.3d 1449 (9th Cir. 1994)........................................................... 8

Six Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir.
1990) ................................................................................................................... 17
Speigler v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 552 F.Supp.2d 1036 (C.D. Cal.
2008) ................................................................................................................... 29
Staton v. Boeing Co.,327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003). .......................................... 44, 45
Stoetzner v. U.S. Steel Corp., 897 F.2d 115 (3d Cir. 1990) .................................... 22
Torres v. Pet Extreme, No. 1:13-CV-01778-LJO, 2015 WL 224752
(E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2015) .................................................................................... 45
Touhey v. United States, No. EDCV 08-01418-VAP (RCx), 2011 WL
3179036 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2011) ..................................................................... 24
16
Utility Reform Project v. Bonneville Power Admin., 869 F.2d 437 (9th
Cir. 1989) ........................................................................................................ 9, 10
17
Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp., 529 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1976) .......................... 9, 10
18
Vassalle v. Midland Funding, LLC, 708 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2013) ......................... 45
19
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) .................................... 14, 38
20
Werdebaugh v. Blue Diamond Growers, No. 12CV2724LHK,

2014 WL 2191901 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2014) ................................................... 30
21
22
White v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 803 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (C.D.

Cal. 2011) ..................................................................................................... 21, 24
23
STATUTES
24
9 U.S.C.
3 ....................................................................................................................... 37
25
26
27
28 U.S.C.
1715 (Class Action Fairness Act) ...................................................................... 6
28
v
1
2
3
4
5
Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c) ................................................................................................................... 9
23 (e) .................................................................................................................. 9
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Codes
17200 .............................................................................................. 28, 29, 30, 38
17203 ................................................................................................................ 30
17500 ................................................................................................................ 38
6
7
California Civil Code

1689.2 ............................................................................................. 18, 25, 33, 34
8
9
TREATISES
10
Manual for Complex Litigation, 4th, 21.62 ............................................................. 3
11
Newberg on Class Actions 12:17 (5th ed.) ........................................................... 24
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vi
1 I.
2
INTRODUCTION
The settlement meets and exceeds the standards for final approval under Rule
3 23(e). After careful consideration, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
4 proposed class settlement (the Settlement) on December 2, 2014. [Dkt. No. 105.]
5 The Settlement is substantial and delivers significant value to directly compensate
6 Class Members who purchased product from Herbalife and lost money in pursuing
7 their Herbalife distributorship, and to Class Members who want to return any
8 Herbalife product for a full refund. After this Court granted preliminary approval,
9 direct notice was sent to all Class Members; direct notice was mailed and emailed
10 to 92.91% of the Class; there were 484 opt-outs to the Settlement; and there were
11 only 21 objections, of which 18 were represented by the same counsel.
12
The Settlement was reached after extensive formal and informal fact and
13 class discovery had been conducted, class discovery had closed, and after Plaintiffs
14 had become fully informed about the strengths and weaknesses of their case.
15 Herbalife had strong defenses regarding both the merits of the claims and regarding
16 class certification, defenses that Plaintiffs have acknowledged in their Settlement
17 approval briefs and supporting papers. The intense and protracted negotiations
18 lasted for over eight months and were supervised by the Hon. Daniel Weinstein
19 (Ret.) and his co-mediator, Cathy Yanni, Esq. Those negotiations culminated in a
20 Settlement providing significant benefits to Class Members:
21
The Defendants deposited $15 million in cash into an escrow account for,
22 pending final approval by this Court, the benefit of the Class to create a Cash
23 Settlement Fund to be distributed to eligible Class members. The Cash Settlement
24 Fund compensates Class Members who joined Herbalife primarily to pursue a
25 business opportunity (and not primarily for personal and/or family consumption of
26 Herbalife products) and who lost money on the sale of Herbalife products pursuing
27 that business opportunity. There will be no reversion of any unclaimed settlement
28 funds to the Defendants.
1
Defendants agreed to pay up to an additional $2.5 million in cash for,
2 pending final approval of the Court, the benefit of Class Members who had unused
3 and unopened product they wished to return for a full refund from a Product
4 Return Fund.
5
Defendants have agreed, pending final approval of the Court, to institute or
6 maintain for three years, thirteen specific corporate policies that benefit Class
7 Members who continue as distributors and new members who join Herbalife
8 relating to terminology used by Herbalife to describe its business practices,
9 transparency regarding success and failure of Herbalife members, and clarifications
10 to the membership agreement and marketing plan to make them less confusing.
11
The parties agree that for any leftover funds from the Cash Settlement Fund,
12 the Court may oversee the distribution of those funds under the cy pres doctrine to
13 Consumer Federation of America.
14
If the Court awards less than the fees and costs requested by Plaintiffs
15 Counsel, the difference will remain in the Cash Settlement Fund to be distributed to
16 the Class or the cy pres recipient. Under no circumstance will there be any reversion
17 of the Cash Settlement Fund to the Defendants assuming the Settlement becomes
18 effective under its terms.
19
The value of the Settlement also is increased by the efforts that the parties
20 have taken to reach Class Members, to encourage them to file claims, and to
21 maximize the payout from the two settlement funds. Under the Preliminary
22 Approval Order, the Settlement has been communicated to each Class Member
23 individually through a robust and intensive direct email and mail Notice Plan
24 coordinated by Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC (KCC) including the mailing
25 of Short Form Notices to 796,594 Class Members and email to 736,556 Class
26 Members for whom current email addresses were available.
27
The Settlement terms ensure that Class Members can claim benefits with
28 minimum effort. To take advantage of the product return component and obtain a
2
1 full refund, class members only had to identify the SKU number of the product
2 (contained on the label of the product they wanted to return) that they purchased
3 either from Herbalife or from a Class Members up-line.
4
To take advantage of the Cash Settlement Fund, Class Members needed only
5 to list the amounts lost in reselling Herbalife products purchased directly from
6 Herbalife, subject to a common-sense fraud protection, such that a claim could not
7 be for over 50% of what a Class Member paid Herbalife for Herbalife product. As
8 foreseen in and allowed by the Settlement Agreement and in light of the number
9 and amount of claims made, the parties have agreed (as set forth in
10 contemporaneous filings) to increase that ceiling to allow claims up to 75% of what
11 a claimant Class Member paid Herbalife for Herbalife products.
12
For those Class Members that purchased less than $750 worth of product
13 from Herbalife, who presumably purchased product for self-consumption, they had
14 only to certify that in their business efforts they lost money on reselling product,
15 which entitled them to a $20 refund check. Finally, all Class Members still
16 Herbalife distributors benefit from the agreement to institute or maintain certain
17 corporate reforms that benefit Class Members doing nothing.
18
As to the 18 objectors represented by attorney Douglas Brooks [] (Brooks
19 Objectors), there appears to have been an organized effort to band together

20 distributors to object to this settlement as reported in the New York Post on
21 November 2, 2014, days after the settlement was announced. (Dracht Decl. 4.) It is
22 noteworthy that in spite of hosting an anti-Herbalife event (attended by William
23 Ackman and a representative of the National Consumers League) (Dracht Decl.
24 8) they could only find 18 distributors to object.1 The attorney for the Objectors
25 discloses in his declaration in opposition to the settlement that:
26
27
1
Manual for Complex Litigation, 4th, 21.62 (in evaluating proposed settlements an
28 organized campaign, does not necessarily reflect the sentiments of the class at-large).
3
Over the course of the past several years I have met, spoken with and
corresponded with representatives of Pershing Square Capital
Management, L.P. (Pershing) concerning Herbalife, the MLM
industry and, more recently, my intention to file this objection.
[(italics added).]
There has been extensive publicity that William Ackman of Pershing Square
7 has made a $1 Billion short wager that Herbalifes stock price will decrease. (Foley
8 Decl. 4, Exhibit G.) It has recently been disclosed that the U. S. Attorney for
9 Manhattan and the FBI are investigating whether individuals hired by Ackman have
10 made false statements about Herbalifes business model to regulators to spur
11 investigations into the company and lower its stock price. (Foley Decl. 4, Exhibit
12 G.) Apart from the relationship, whether actual or perceived, between the Brooks
13 Objectors and William Ackman and Pershing Square, the Court should overrule the
14 objections based on their merits as discussed below.
15
The proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. It has been
16 reached after years of litigation and discovery, and after extensive arms-length,
17 intensely fought negotiations conducted by respected mediators. Plaintiffs seek final
18 approval of the Settlement and certification of the Class for settlement.
19 II.
CLASS NOTICE COMPLIED WITH THE COURTS ORDER, RULE
20
23(c), AND DUE PROCESS
21
The notice program complied with the Courts Preliminary Approval Order.
22 That program had six components: (i) direct emailed notice in either English or
23 Spanish; (ii) direct, mailed postcard notice in either English or Spanish for those
24 Class Members that had no email address on file or whose email addresses resulted
25 in a bounce back upon initial email notice; (iii) a long-form notice (in English and
26 Spanish) available for viewing or download on the Internet; (iv) a settlement
27 website (in English and Spanish), where claims were filed and, once all claims had
28 been submitted, where participating Class Members could check prior to the date
4
1 for objecting or filing claims to determine the minimum amount they could expect
2 to receive if the Settlement is approved; (v) a settlement website where Frequently
3 Asked Questions were posed and answered regarding the Settlement, and (vi)
4 telephone help lines (for English and Spanish-speaking Class Members) for which
5 to contact Class Counsel to answer any questions that a Class Member had
6 regarding the settlement or filing a claim. All materials related to the Settlement
7 that were made available to Class Members were made available both in English
8 and Spanish. When distributors originally signed up with Herbalife to become
9 distributors they could check a box requesting that materials be sent to them in
10 English or Spanish. KCC was provided that data, and sent all Settlement related
11 materials in Spanish to those individuals who had checked the box on their original
12 Herbalife application that they wanted materials sent to them in Spanish.
13
14
A.
Direct Notice
On December 30, 2014, KCC, a nationally renowned claims administrator,
15 emailed the Short Form notice via email to 1,051,342 potential Class Members and
16 mailed the Short Form notice via direct mail to 481,883 Class Members, as
17 approved by the Court. (Declaration of Eric Robin Re: Notice Procedure dated
18 April 13, 2015 (Robin Decl.), 4, 5.) These potential Class Members were
19 identified in data that Herbalife provided to KCC from its distributor records, which
20 contained contact information (email or mail) for those eligible Class Members. For
21 the mailed notices, KCC processed the records through the National Change of
22 Address database to update any addresses on file with the United States Postal
23 Service. (Robin Decl. 4.) Following the email notice, on January 9, 2015, KCC
24 mailed additional notices to 314,711 people whose email notice was undeliverable,
25 and KCC has followed up with mail notice to those class members whose postcards
26 have been returned where KCC has located new addresses. (Robin Decl. 9, 10.)
27
28
Class members could request (by mail, phone, or by email) that a paper
version of the Long Form Notice and/or claim form be mailed to them and KCC
5
has fulfilled 3,793 such requests. (Robin Decl. 12.) Herbalife provided Notice of
the Settlement, in accord with the Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. 1715),
via Certified Mail, to all States Attorneys General, the U.S. Attorney General, and
the Attorneys General for U.S. possessions and territories. [Dkt No. 101.]
5
6
B.
Notice Available at the Settlement Website
The Long Form Notice and other case information are available at the
7 Settlement Website, www.hebalifeclassactionsettlement.com, which was launched

8 on December 29, 2014. (Robin Decl. 13.) This website is interactive and includes
9 the following information and features: (i) a description of the Settlement; (ii) a list
10 of important dates, including the date set for the Final Fairness hearing and
11 deadlines for Class Members to object, opt-out, and file claims; (iii) Long Form
12 Notice, Settlement Agreement, and Preliminary Approval Order; (iv) an online
13 claims filing feature, which allowed Class Members with an Herbalife ID number to
14 file a claim online with or without having received an email or mail postcard
15 Notice; (v) answers to frequently-asked questions, including instructions on how to
16 submit a claim for those Class Members who wished to print, complete, and file
17 with KCC a paper Claim Form instead of filing a Claim Form online; (vi) contact
18 information for KCC, including the case-dedicated mailing address, toll-free
19 telephone number, and e-mail address; and (vii) telephone numbers for both English
20 and Spanish-speaking Class Members to contact Plaintiffs counsel for questions
21 regarding the settlement. See www.herbalifeclassactionsettlement.com. Hundreds of
22 Class Members, including Spanish speakers, contacted Class Counsel (including
23 counsel fluent in Spanish) for advice on the Settlement. (Declaration of Philip
24 Dracht (Dracht Decl.), 9.)
25
The interactive claim-filing feature of the website became available to Class
26
Members on December 30, 2014. Claims could be filed as follows: (i) Class
27
Members to whom the Notice was emailed or mailed with a Claim ID, could enter
28
6
the assigned Claim ID; (ii) Class Members who did not have their Claim ID but
who knew their Herbalife ID could enter the Herbalife ID.
Based on the foregoing Notice Program, KCC estimates that the combined
4 email and postcard individual notice efforts were to approximately 92.91% of Class
5 Members. (Robin Decl. 11.)2 And the Settlement has received significant press
6 attention, including stories published in LaOpinin (Los Angeles), El Dario La
7 Prensa (New York), La Raza (Chicago), El Mensajero (San Francisco), Rumba
8 (Houston), Reuters, Bloomberg Business, Slate, AP, New York Post, National Law
9 Journal, news.yahoo.com and many other publications. (Dracht Decl. 3.)
10
11
C.
Class Counsel Responded to and Advised Claimants
The website and long form notice directed Claimants with questions
12 regarding the Settlement to call Class Counsel at two telephone numbers, one for
13 English speaking claimants and one for Spanish speaking claimants. Class Counsel
14 responded to over 300 calls from claimants that had questions. (Dracht Decl. 9.)
15
16
D.
Late Claimants
Because those claimants that did not have an initially valid email or mailing
17 address may have received their postcard notice after the deadline to file a claim
18 had run, Class Counsel secured Herbalifes agreement to allow for those claimants
19 to submit late claims. (Dracht Decl. 10.) Class Counsel continued responding to
20 inquiries from English and Spanish speaking claimants and worked with KCC to
21 provide those late claimants with claim forms to fill out and submit. (Dracht Decl.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Astiana v. Kashi Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127624, 18-19, 32 (S.D. Cal.
2014) (granting final settlement approval when the notice reached 83% of the class
members); Dremak v. Iovate Health Scis. Group, Inc. (In re Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales Practices
Litig.), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162106, 175, 190 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (granting final settlement
approval when notice reached approximately 81.1% of class members); Fulford v. Logitech, Inc.,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29042, 3-4 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (granting final settlement approvaland
finding that the settlement was duly noticedwhen notice reached 85% of the class
members); Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117927, 5, n. 1 (N.D. Cal.
2011) (finding that when 10% of the notices were not deliverable, this constituted a small
amount).
7
1 11.) Class Counsel has since secured the agreement of Herbalife to reopen the
2 website until at least April 30, 2015 to allow late claimants to make claims online to
3 expedite the process. (Dracht Decl. 11.) On the five objectors who claimed never
4 to have received timely notice, Class Counsel secured the agreement of Herbalife to
5 allow submission of their claims, sent their counsel claim forms, and received and
6 are processing their claims with those of other late claimants. (Dracht Decl. 14,
7 Exhs. C and D.) The two pro se objectors who filed objections with the Court
8 stating that they had not received timely notice, Armstrong and Jong, submitted
9 claim forms and have now withdrawn their objections. (Dracht Decl. Ex. B.)
10
11
E.
Claim Amounts
On March 3, 2015, KCC provided notice of each claimants Business
12 Opportunity Claim award and/or Product Return Payment on the settlement

13 website, with the opportunity for claimants to provide substantiating information if
14 they disputed the award amount. (Robin Decl. 23.)
15
16
F.
Notice Satisfied the Requirements of Rule 23(c) and (e)
The notice to the Class was adequate and satisfied both Rule 23 and due
17 process. Under Rule 23(e)(1), the court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to
18 all class members bound by the proposal. Rule 23 requires only that the best notice
19 practicable rather than actual notice is provided.3 Notice is satisfactory if it
20 generally describes the terms of the settlement in sufficient detail to alert those with
21 adverse viewpoints to investigate and to come forward and be heard,4 particularly
22 where there is a robust direct mail and email notice here direct notice to over 1.55
23 million potential Class Members. In approving the Notice Program, the Court found
24 that the content of the notices and the methods of dissemination (a) meet the
25 requirements of due process and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c) and (e); (b) constitutes the
26
27
3
4
28
Siber v. Mabon, 18 F.3d 1449, 1453 (9th Cir. 1994).

Rodriguez v. W. Publ'g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 962 (9th Cir. 2009)
8
1 best notice practicable under the circumstances to all persons entitled to notice; and
2 (c) satisfies the Constitutional requirements regarding notice. [Dkt. No. 105.] KCC
3 reports that all of the elements of the preliminary notice requirements in the
4 Preliminary Approval Order were completed. (Robin Decl. 4-13.)
5
III.
FOR PURPOSES OF SETTLEMENT, THE SETTLEMENT CLASS
MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23
The Court already has provisionally certified the Settlement Class, appointed
8 the Class Representatives and appointed Co-Lead Counsel to represent the

9 Settlement Class Members, and made findings under Rule 23. [Dkt. No. 105.] As
10 set forth in Plaintiffs Memorandum Supporting the Motion for Preliminary
11 Approval, [Dkt No. 94], the Joint Declaration of Thomas G. Foley and Scott M.
12 Petersen, [Dkt No. 96], and the Courts Preliminary Approval Order, [Dkt. No.
13 105], which pleadings are incorporated here by this reference, the Settlement Class
14 satisfies the class certification requirements set forth in Rule 23(a) and Rule
15 23(b)(3). So as not to add to an already lengthy brief, Plaintiffs will not repeat those
16 points again here.
17
18
IV.
THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE

It is well established in the Ninth Circuit that voluntary conciliation and
19 settlement are the preferred means of dispute resolution.5 Of course, the very
20 essence of a settlement is compromise, a yielding of absolutes and an abandoning of
21 highest hopes.6 Class action suits readily lend themselves to compromise because
22 of the difficulties of proof, the uncertainties of the outcome, and the typical length.
23 Beyond question there is an overriding public interest in settling and quieting
24 litigation, and this is particularly true in class action suits.7 Approval of a class
25
26
Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Commn, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982).
Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d 615, 624 quoting Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1330
(5th Cir. 1977).
7
Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp., 529 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1976); see also Utility
Reform Project v. Bonneville Power Admin., 869 F.2d 437, 443 (9th Cir. 1989).
9
5
6
27
28
1 action settlement is a matter within the sound discretion of the court, reviewable
2 for clear abuse of discretion.8 Rule 23(e) requires court approval of all class
3 action settlements, which may be granted only after a fairness hearing and a
4 determination that the settlement taken as a whole is fair, reasonable, and
5 adequate.9 To make this determination, the Court must balance against the risks
6 of continued litigation (including the strengths and weaknesses of Plaintiffs case),
7 the benefits afforded to members of the Class, and the immediacy and certainty of a
8 substantial recovery.10
9
[t]he Court shall consider the vagaries of litigation and compare the
10
significance of immediate recovery by way of the compromise to the
11
mere possibility of relief in the future, after protracted and expensive
12
litigation. In this respect, It has been held proper to take the bird in
13
hand instead of a prospective flock in the bush.11
14
The Ninth Circuit has set forth several factors which may be considered and
15 balanced in evaluating the fairness of a class action settlement:

16
[1] [T]he strength of plaintiffs case; [2] the risk, expense, complexity,
17
and likely duration of further litigation; [3] the risk of maintaining class
18
action status throughout the trial; [4] the amount offered in settlement;
19
[5] the extent of discovery completed, and the stage of the proceedings;
20
[6] the experience and views of counsel; [7] the presence of a
21
22
23
8
In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 940 (9th Cir.2011) (reversing
24 approval where settlement provided for no recovery for economic injury for class members but
25 allowed for $100,000 in cy pres award, $800,000 in fees, and $12,000 in incentives)
26
27
28
citing Rodriguez, 563 F.3d 948, 963.; See, also, Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268,
1276 (9th Cir. 1992).
9
In Re. Bluetooth, 654, F.3d at 946; City of Seattle, 955 F.2d at 1276.
10
In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir.2000).
11
Natl Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 526 (C.D.Cal.2004)
(citations omitted).
10
governmental participant; [9] and the reaction of the class members to
the proposed settlement.12
The importance of any of these factors will depend upon and be dictated by
4 the nature of the claims advanced, the types of relief sought, and the unique facts and
5 circumstances presented by each individual case.13 In exercising its discretion, the
6 courts intrusion upon what is otherwise a private consensual agreement negotiated
7 between the parties to a lawsuit must be limited to the extent necessary to reach a
8 reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by,
9 or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a
10 whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned.14
11
The Ninth Circuit defines the limits of the inquiry to be made:
12
[T]he settlement or fairness hearing is not to be turned into a trial or
13
rehearsal for trial on the merits. Neither the trial court nor this court is
14
to reach any ultimate conclusions on the contested issues of fact and
15
law which underlie the merits of the dispute, for it is the uncertainty of
16
outcome in litigation and avoidance of wasteful and expensive
17
litigation that induce consensual settlements. The proposed settlement
18
is not to be judged against a hypothetical or speculative measure of
19
what might have been achieved by the negotiators.15
20 Evaluation of these factors supports final approval of the proposed Settlement.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625; accord Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937, 953 (9th
Cir. 2003); see also Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004) (the
Churchill factors).
13
Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625.
14
Id.
15
Id.
11
1
2
A.
Strength of Plaintiffs Case
In determining the settlements fairness, the Court balances risks of
3 continued litigation, including the strengths and weaknesses of a Plaintiffs case,

4 against the benefits, immediacy, and certainty of a recovery.16
5
Plaintiffs are confident of many aspects of their case, even though this action
6 presents several novel and complex issues of fact and law (including class
7 certification) that must be overcome before Plaintiffs could prevail. As examples,
8 Plaintiffs believe that they could prove that the Statement of Average Gross
9 Compensation used from April 2009 through February 2013 was deceptive and
10 misleading. Plaintiffs also are confident that retail profits advertised to Class
11 Members bore no relationship to actual retail profits obtained in the field.
12
Notwithstanding these strengths, there are also many risks that Class Counsel
13 weighed against the strengths in determining what is in the best interest of the
14 Class. Plaintiffs claim that Herbalife was operating an endless chain was a claim
15 that, while Plaintiffs believed had merit, had substantial risk. And the law on
16 endless chains/pyramid schemes is far from clear on the intersection of personal
17 consumption and recruiting rewards.17 Procedurally, the Ninth Circuits decision in
18 Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir.Cal.2012), could drastically
19 reduce the size of the class and the economics if the Class were just limited to
20 California residents.
21
Too often, uninformed observers believe that, just because a proposed
22 settlement of a class action is pending, victory at trial must have been assured.
23 While rarely true, that is especially untrue here. This case has been fraught with risk
24
25
26
27
28
16
LaGarde v. Support.com, Inc., 2013 WL 1283325, at * 4 (N. D.Cal. March 26,

2013) citing In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir.2000).
17
F.T.C. v. BurnLounge, Inc., 753 F.3d 878, 885 (9th Cir. 2014) (BurnLounge is correct
that when participants bought packages in part for internal consumption (to obtain the ability to
sell music through BurnPages and to use the package merchandise), the participants were the
ultimate users of the merchandise and that this internal sale alone does not make BurnLounge a
pyramid scheme.).
12
1 and remained so as class certification approached. The Settlement was achieved in

2 the face of difficult defenses raised by Herbalife. Herbalife said Plaintiffs could
3 never prove that it was operating an endless chain/pyramid scheme and produced in
4 discovery various surveys and expert analyses to support their position. Herbalife
5 had a response to each of the foregoing points put forth by Plaintiffs as strengths.
6 Herbalife asserted that many of its members joined for personal consumption and
7 not to pursue the business opportunity and had survey data to back-up that up.
8 Herbalife also had objective evidence that its current one-year, no-questions-asked
9 return policies were infrequently utilized by members.
10
Significantly, on the Statement of Average Gross Compensation, Herbalife
11 had evidence thatafter it adopted a fuller disclosure of Average Gross

12 Compensation in its marketing materials in February of 2013 that showed the
13 number of members/distributors each year who earned no incomethe number of
14 new members/distributors actually increased. Based on this, Herbalife forcefully
15 argued that claimed misrepresentations and omissions in earlier Statements of
16 Average Gross Compensation were not material, otherwise the number of
17 members/distributors should have decreased following the changes.
18
And there was ample evidence (including evidence from Class
19 Representatives own deposition testimony) that members/distributors joined for

20 consumption and enjoyed the product for personal consumption, received
21 substantial health benefits from the products, and were sometimes reselling the
22 product for Herbalifes full suggested retail price, including all shipping and
23 handling costs.
24
Overall, the settlement avoids the risks that Plaintiffs could not prove that
25 Herbalife violated the Endless Chain laws and the Unfair and Deceptive Business
26 Practices Acts.
27
28
13
1
2
B.
The Expense and Likely Duration Absent a Settlement
[U]nless the settlement is clearly inadequate, its acceptance and approval are
3 preferable to lengthy and expensive litigation with uncertain results.18 The risk,
4 expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation here was monumental.
5 The litigation road has been arduous and promises to be even more difficult absent
6 settlement. Settlement will conserve the resources of the parties and the Court and
7 will guarantee a substantial recovery for the Class now while obviating the need for
8 a lengthy, complex, and uncertain trial. If this matter were certified, a lengthy
9 appeal period would result. If this matter went to verdict, a lengthy appeal period
10 would result. The Ninth Circuit ranks at the bottom of the circuit courts for median
11 time to resolve an appeal, requiring on average over 12.4 months from filing the
12 notice of appeal to disposition.19
13
C.
14
15
The Risk of Certifying and Maintaining Class Action Status

Throughout the Trial Warrants Approval
Herbalife has agreed to certification of the proposed class for settlement only,
16 and has reserved the right to challenge class certification if the settlement is not
17 approved. While Plaintiffs believed that they could have certified the case, they
18 listened to the counsel of two experienced retired judges that it would be an uphill
19 battle. (See Declarations of Judge Weinstein 11, [Dkt No. 98] and Judge Larson,
20 7, [Dkt No. 96-1].)
21
Herbalife informed Plaintiffs that, based on multiple surveys prepared by
22 recognized third parties of both current and former members, it would argue that
23 there were not common issues. Plaintiffs obtained and reviewed those surveys. In
24 the wake of U.S. Supreme Court decision on commonality standard for all class
25 actions in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), these third party
26 surveys indicating individual issues presented serious challenges to obtaining
27
18
28
19
Natl Rural Telecomms. Coop., 221 F.R.D. at 526 (citation omitted).

Dracht Decl., Ex. F (reprint from the Federal Judicial Center judicial-caseload profiles.).
14
1 certification. Herbalife had an argument that 73% of Herbalife distributors joined

2 Herbalife for personal consumption, and therefore lacked commonality with the
3 other purported 27% who joined for other reasons. The surveys provided by
4 Herbalife confirmed that the vast majority of members surveyed joined Herbalife to
5 obtain a discount on product they purchased for their own consumption, and not for
6 resale. And as the Ninth Circuit just confirmed in BurnLounge, participants
7 purchasing product for their own use could be considered ultimate users and that
8 internal sale alone would not make Herbalife a pyramid scheme.20 Had every Class
9 Member joined Herbalife and purchased products to pursue the business
10 opportunity, Plaintiffs case for certification (on the Section 327 claim) would be
11 straightforward; but based on Class Counsels investigation, including speaking
12 with putative class members and reviewing the surveys provided by Herbalife, that
13 was not the case.21
14
Damages also presented complexities on certification. Following the
15 Supreme Courts decision on the certification of damages class actions in Comcast

16 Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), Plaintiffs anticipated this issue being
17 hard fought. On damages, under the causes of action alleged, based on this Courts
18 ruling on the 12(b)(6) motion, class members recovery on the endless chain claim
19 would have been limited to recission. [Dkt. No. 40 at 10-11.] The Court held that to
20 be entitled to rescission, class members must return product purchased. A primary
21 focus of the Objectors objection is that the settlement does not provide for recovery
22 for consequential damages incurred by members. But given the Courts ruling on
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
F.T.C. v. BurnLounge, Inc., 753 F.3d 878, 885 (9th Cir. 2014).
For instance, the Lieberman survey produced by Herbalife concluded that over 70% of
the respondents purchased Herbalife product for self-consumption and that approximately half
joined Herbalife with no expectations of making any money. Declaration of Thomas G. Foley, Jr.,
dated April 13, 2015 (Foley Decl.), 5, 6. The survey touted by Objectors was considered by
Class Counsel prior to negotiating the Settlement. That survey only had 48 supervisors, and a high
percentage of those few respondents from a selected subset of all class members (Supervisors)
were pursuing a business opportunity as opposed to self-consuming. Foley Decl., 5, 8.
15
21
1 the 12(b)(6) motion, those consequential damages would not have been recoverable
2 under the causes of action in the First Amended Complaint (FAC).
3
4
D.
The Amount Offered in Settlement
The proposed Settlement has objective monetary value and provides
5 substantial economic and non-monetary benefits to the Class compared to what

6 Plaintiffs could achieve through a successful trial. The total cash value of the
7 Settlement, considering all of its benefits, is $17.5 million. The corporate reforms
8 that Herbalife agreed to implement and maintain are valuable. Although the
9 proposed settlement should not be measured in terms of what class members could
10 have recovered had they prevailed,22 the settlement constitutes a substantial
11 percentage of the relief which could have been obtained given this Courts ruling
12 that Plaintiffs sole remedy was rescission, and that remedy required the return of
13 product.
14
1.
15
16
The Cash Value of the Settlement ($15 Million)

a.
Business Opportunity Claims
Under the Settlement, Class Members were given the opportunity to make a
17 claim for their entire business opportunity losses associated with the purchase of
18 Herbalife product for which they could not recoup their costs. Out of the 7,238
19 claims, 114 claimants will receive payments greater than $10,000.00. 324 claims
20 will receive payments greater than $5,000.00. 1,629 claimants will receive
21 payments greater than $1,000.00. The average business opportunity award,
22 assuming a payout of 75%, is $1,120.09. The largest business opportunity award,
23 assuming a payout of 75%, is $98,588.36. (Robin Decl. 21.) Every claimant who
24 could not demonstrate a loss, and every claimant who purchased less than $750 of
25 products from Herbalife during the Class Period, will receive $20.00. Every
26
27
28
See Linney v. Cellular Alaska Pship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1242 (9th Cir. 1998) (The
proposed settlement is not to be judged against a hypothetical or speculative measure of what
might have been achieved by the negotiators).
16
22
1 claimant who purchased more than $750 in products from Herbalife will not receive
2 less than the full Estimated Total Loss claimed or 75% of the amount paid. (Robin
3 Decl. 21.)
4
As Class Counsel secured Herbalifes agreement to allow late claimants to
5 continue to make claims on the settlement fund through at least April 30, 2015
6 pending availability of funds, the amount claimed by Class Members should only
7 increase.
8
b.
Be Contributed to the Consumer Federation of
10
11
Unclaimed Monies from the Settlement Funds Will
America
Additional funds remaining in the Cash Settlement Fund may be available for
12 further contribution to consumer advocacy, research, and education as provided in

13 the Agreement. This portion of the Settlement, to the extent it may be a cy pres
14 distribution, has been specifically designed to benefit all Class Members and
15 conforms to Ninth Circuit standards for distributing unclaimed class action funds.
16 There must be a driving nexus between the plaintiff class and the cy pres
17 beneficiaries.23 This means that the award must be guided by the objectives of, and
18 issues invoked by, the underlying statute or lawsuit and the interests of the class.24
19 The award must not benefit a group too remote from the plaintiff class,25 and
20 must target the class by accounting for the geographic dispersion of the class (that
21 is, if the class is national, the cy pres distribution must have a national scope).26
22 Further, the cy pres recipients must be identified to the court when settlement
23
24
25
26
27
28
23
Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Six Mexican Workers
v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1308 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Lane v. Facebook, Inc.,
696 F.3d 811, 834 (9th Cir. 2012) (the district court must ensure that a cy pres award targets the
plaintiff class).
24
Kellogg, 697 F.3d at 858 (quoting Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.
2011)).
25
Id. (quoting Six Mexican Workers, 904 F.2d at 1308).
26
Nachshin, 663 F.3d at 1040.
17
1 approval is sought so the court can undertake the searching inquiry that precedent
2 requires.27
3
The Consumer Federation of America fits this description. It is a nonprofit
4 comprising over 250 nonprofit member groups, including national consumer

5 organizations, over 100 local consumer groups, state and local protection agencies
6 and other consumer cooperatives. (Declaration of Stephen Brobeck, 3, [Dkt No.
7 97].)
8
The Settlement drives participation from the cash funds so any monies
9 ultimately contributed in cy pres represent money left over after all Class Members
10 have made a claim. The comprehensive notice campaign and easy claims process
11 serve this goal, as does the proposed increase of payments to up to 75% of qualified
12 purchases. Class Counsel will continue to closely monitor the late claims approved
13 and ensure that distributions to qualifying Class Members is maximized under the
14 spirit of the Settlement before any remaining funds spill-over to the Consumer
15 Federation of America Fund.
16
17
2.
The Value of the Product Return Component ($2.5 Million)
Critical to this settlement was the creation of a Product Return Fund. This
18
was because, in the investigation and prosecution, there were reports of Herbalife
19
distributors becoming garage qualified, which meant that they front-loaded
20
purchases of Herbalife product to become a Supervisor to obtain higher discounts,
21
with no means to resell those products (storing them in their garage). Throughout
22
the litigation and mediation, Herbalife maintained that it already had established a
23
one year no-questions-asked return policy since mid-2013 and that it had objective
24
data there were low actual returns throughout the Class Period. That data on the
25
rate of product return was produced by Herbalife and reviewed by Plaintiffs.
26
Because of the clear remedy of rescission under California Civil Code
27
28
1689.2 Class Counsel negotiated to include in the settlement to create a fund to

27
Kellogg, 697 F.3d at 867.

18
allow Class Members to return, for a full refund, any leftover, unopened product. It
is significant that, to date, only $902,311.92 is claimed in Product Return
Payments. (Robin Decl. 22.) This indicates that reports of front-loading and
stockpiling product purchases were anecdotal.
As confirmed by Herbalifes Joinder, Class Members can return unused
product for a full refund whether the product was purchased from Herbalife or a
third party up-line independent distributor. This means that the rescission remedy
is available even for product purchased from third parties.
If there really were tens of thousands of members who had Herbalife product
10
stored in their garages they could not sell, why were there so few claims submitted
11
to the Claims Administrator for product return? A logical answer is that the
12
anecdotal evidence was just that.
13
14
3.
Valuable Corporate Reforms
The Settlement Agreements thirteen required corporate policy reforms
15
provide a substantial benefit to the Settlement Class. These reforms and the
16
objections to them are addressed in section V.F below.
17
18
E.
Discovery and Investigation Included Class and Merits Issues
In analyzing the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the
19 proceedings, the court evaluates whether the parties have sufficient information to
20 make an informed decision about settlement.28 The court may consider the extent
21 of both formal and informal discovery, and information obtained about the case
22 through other means.29
23
This matter has been intensely investigated, litigated, and mediated. The Joint
24 Declaration details all of the formal and informal discovery taken. [Dkt. No. 96,
25 15-24.] We will not repeat that narrative here and instead incorporate it by
26
28
27
28
Linney, 151 F.3d at 1239.

See In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir. 2000) (class counsels
significant investigation, research, and work with experts throughout the litigation supported
approval of the settlement, even absent extensive formal discovery).
19
29
1 reference. Given the investigation and discovery, and the counsel of Judge
2 Weinstein and Judge Larson, Class Counsel have a clear view of the strengths and
3 weaknesses of the Classs claims and damage approaches. Sufficient discovery has
4 been conducted in this matter to allow counsel to fairly investigate the pertinent
5 legal and factual issues and fully recommend the Settlement.
6
7
F.
Recommendation and Views of Experienced Class Counsel
The support of experienced counsel favors approving a class action
8 settlement.30 The recommendations of plaintiffs counsel should be given a

9 presumption of reasonableness, especially where, as here, the recommendations
10 follow lengthy arms-length and intensely fought negotiations overseen by a Court
11 appointed neutral settlement master.31
12
The extensive experience of Class Counsel in litigating complex class actions
13 is summarized in the Joint Declaration. [Dkt. No. 96.] In recommending the

14 Settlement, Plaintiffs Class Counsel exercised their professional judgment after
15 thoroughly investigating Plaintiffs claims, considering the cases strength,
16 evaluating the complex risks of litigation knowing the facts and the legal issues
17 facing the Class. After this thorough analysis, Class Counsel concluded that the
18 settlement was fair and would provide substantial benefits to the class. [Dkt. No.
19 96; see also [Dkt No. 98 (Weinstein) 12-15 and Dkt No. 96-1 (Larson) 11.]
20
21
G.
Governmental Input into the Settlement Agreement
Another factor that the Court may consider in evaluating the fairness of a
22 settlement is a governmental participant, which serves to protect the interest of the

23
24
25
26
27
28
30
See City of Seattle, 955 F.2d at 1291; Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566,
576-77 (9th Cir. 2004).
31
Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 485 F. Supp. 610, 622 (N.D. Cal. 1979); Ellis v. Naval Air
Rework Facility, 87 F.R.D. 15, 18 (N.D. Cal. 1980) (the fact that experienced counsel involved
in the case approved the settlement after hard-fought negotiations is entitled to considerable
weight), affd, 661 F.2d 939 (9th Cir. 1981); DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 528 (Great
weight is accorded to the recommendation of counsel, who are most closely acquainted with the
facts of the underlying litigation.) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
20
1 class members.32 In response to the notice, Class Counsel and Counsel for
2 Herbalife met and conferred with representatives of several Attorney Generals
3 offices. These discussions led to several clarifications in the Settlement Agreement
4 relating to the release in response to their comments.33 [Dkt. No. 108.]
5
6
H.
The Positive Reaction of the Class to the Settlement
A court may appropriately infer that a class action settlement is fair,
7 adequate, and reasonable when few class members object to it.34 It is established
8 that the absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action
9 settlement raises a strong presumption that the terms of a proposed class settlement
10 action are favorable to the class members.35 Notice of the Settlement was sent to
11 over 1.5 million class members, and only 21 class members filed an objection (the
12 Objectors). Two withdrew their objection (Dracht Decl. Ex. B) and the other did
13 not think Herbalife should have settled (Dracht Decl. Ex. A (Lokken).)
14
15
1. Few Class Members Objected to the Settlement

Here 7,238 class members have filed claims. (Robin Decl. 19.) Yet, only
16 485 putative class members have elected to opt out of the settlement, and only 21
17 have filed objections. In a class action settlement of this size, some objections are to
18 be expected.36 The objection and exclusion rates relative to the number of class
19 members who responded favorably weigh strongly in favor of approval.37
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
32
See Marshall v. Holiday Magic, Inc., 550 F.2d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 1977).
It is the policy of the Attorneys General with whom the parties discussed the Settlement
that that their decision not to act against a class action settlement does not constitute, and should
not be construed as, approval of the settlement.
34
Marshall, 550 F.2d at 1178; see also White v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 803 F.
Supp. 2d 1086, 1099 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (Although several groups have pursued their objections
with notable vigor, the total number of objectors and/or opt-outs is small when compared with the
number of class members who responded favorably.).
35
DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. at 528-29.
36
See In re NASDAQ MarketMakers Antitrust Litig., 187 F.R.D. 465, 478 (S.D.N.Y.
1998) (In litigation involving a large class, it would be extremely unusual not to encounter
objections.).
37
See Stoetzner v. U.S. Steel Corp., 897 F.2d 115, 118-19 (3d Cir. 1990) (approving
settlement where only 29 objections were made in a 281-member class).
21
33
Collectively, the number of opt outs and objections amounts to just 0.033%
of the total number of Class Members to whom notice was sent. Courts have
approved settlements where the percentage of objectors was much higher than this
amount.38
2. The Settlement Response Rate Was In Line with Other Class
6
7
Actions Given the Challenges of this Litigation

Viewed against the aggregate number of 1,533,339 Class Members, 7,238
8 individual claims as of the date of the filing of this motion might appear low;
9 however, under the circumstances and the nature of the allegations, it is not.39 This
10 is because the lawsuit arises out of the allegations that the Herbalife Business
11 Opportunity was a pyramid scheme. This action and any corresponding recovery
12 would be geared towards compensating those participants pursuing the business
13 opportunity and not just joining to purchase product at a discount for their own
14 consumption. A critical pillar of Herbalifes defense, both to certification and on the
15 merits, was that an independent survey with many respondents confirmed that 73%
16 of potential Class Members were not primarily joining for business opportunities
17 but, instead, were joining for personal or family consumption of the products and
18 that approximately half had no expectation of making any money.
19
Because there was no easy way for Class Counsel to differentiate a Class
20 Member who joined for self-consumption and one that joined to pursue the business
21 opportunity (and lost money), the claims process required the Class Members who
22 sought a payment under the Cash Settlement Fund to certify, under penalty of
23 perjury, that they joined Herbalife primarily to pursue a business opportunity and
24 not primarily to personally (or as a family) consume Herbalifes product. [Dkt No.
25
26
38
See, e.g., Churchill Village., 361 F.3d at 577 (approving settlement where 545 people
27 out of an initial notice pool of 90,000 objected to the settlement or excluded themselves).
39
Class Counsel anticipates that the number of claimants will increase through April 30,
28 2015 as late claimants may be submitting claims.
22
1 95-4, pg. 5.]40 This certification allowed for Class Members to exercise a high
2 amount of discretion in determining whether they could participate. Class members
3 who joined Herbalife primarily to obtain discounts on products which they and their
4 families intended to self-consume were not eligible to participate in the cash
5 component of the Settlement.
6
Based on the independent surveys produced by Herbalife, an explanation
7 why only 7,238 claims were filed is that a significant majority of the individuals in
8 the class definition joined Herbalife to consume its product or for a reason other
9 than to make money, such as joining because a family member or friend asked him
10 or her to join.
11
Finally, consistent with the goal of rescission, to make a claim on the
12 Business Opportunity Fund Class Members had to certify that, in pursuing the
13 Herbalife business opportunity, I did not recover/earn back the amount of money I
14 spent purchasing product directly from Herbalife for resale. [Dkt No. 95-4, pg. 5.]
15 This required Class Member to have an economic injury arising from the purchase
16 of Herbalife products.
17
These two straightforward and simple requirements affected the members of
18 the Class who could make a Business Opportunity Claim to those Class Members
19 who joined Herbalife in reliance on the representations made by Herbalife regarding
20 the alleged business opportunity and who suffered a loss trying to resell Herbalife
21 product.
22
23
24
25
26
27
40
All Class Members could make a Product Return Claim provided they had unopened,
28 unused products purchased more than one year prior to February 3, 2015. [Dkt No. 95-4, pg. 3-4.]
23
Under these circumstances the response rate is in line with other class action
2 settlements.41 In several cases studied, the response rate was less than 1%.42 Courts
3 have found that the class reacted positively and approved class action settlements in
4 cases involving low response rates.43
5 V.
6
THE OBJECTIONS TO THE SETTLEMENT LACK MERIT

Below, we address the objections of Elvia Acosta, Sabas Avila, Miguel
7 Calderon, Felipe Colon, Elizabeth Correa, Maria Cutzal, Juana Estala, Jose G.
8 Garcia, Valentina, Leon, Rossina Martinez, Gilberto Melcho Sanchez, Martil Palma
9 Vallecillo, Yader A. Pastron, Susana Perez, Eric Rodensky, Jose Tafoya, Olivia
10 Torres, and Julia Ulloa, all of whom are represented by same counsel (collectively
11 the Brooks Objectors), and Konstance Armstrong, Wyman Jong, and Jeff
12 Lokken,44 who objected pro se.
13
A.
14
15
The Business Opportunity Fund Compensates for Legally

Cognizable Losses
The Brooks Objectors claim, using a back-of-the-envelope calculation that
16 the Settlement Fund represents somewhere between 1% and 2% of the potential

17 recovery after trial, maybe less. [Dkt No. 121, 21:20-22.] To get there, they
18 extrapolate several variables and then apply their own figures regarding
19
41
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Newberg on Class Actions 12:17 (5th ed.)

Id.; see also Jermyn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., No. 08 Civ. 214 CM, 2012 WL 2505644,
at *6 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (settlements that require class members to file a claim regularly yield
response rates of 10 percent or less); In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., No. 08-MDL-01952,
2011 WL 6209188 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 13, 2011) (recognizing that the percentage of claims filed is
not dispositive and is frequently less than 5% and approving settlement and finding favorable
class reaction with a 1% response rate)
43
Touhey v. United States, No. EDCV 08-01418-VAP (RCx), 2011 WL 3179036 (C.D.
Cal. July 25, 2011) (approving settlement and finding positive reaction where response rate was
2%); Parks v. Portnoff Law Assoc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 244, 251 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (approving
settlement and finding favorable class reaction where the response rate was 2%); accord White v.
Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 803 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1100 (C.D.Cal.2011) ( [T]his
underwhelming [5%] response rate does not mean that the Settlement, on the whole, is not fair,
reasonable and adequate.).
44
As Mr. Lokkens objection is that Herbalife should not have settled with Plaintiffs, the
Court can overrule this objection.
24
42
1 compensable losses to get an aggregate class-wide damages estimate of $1.12

2 billion. [Dkt No. 121, 21:9-12.]
3
But the Court need not entertain abstractions on final approval. The claims
4 process was open to all Class Members and was based on (but broader than)
5 rescission of purchases of product from Herbalife. To make a Business Opportunity
6 Claim, a claimant only needed to certify that they were primarily pursuing the
7 business opportunity and that they lost money on reselling Herbalife products. The
8 percentage of the class directly notified is high and the bar to claim was low, yet
9 only 7,238 of the eligible 1,533,339 Class Members stepped forward. As described
10 in paragraph 21 of the Robin Declaration, there were significant claims made and
11 significant claims will be paid if the Court grants final approval.
12
These are real numbers, not back-of-the-envelope calculations. And these
13 real numbers reflect the rescission goals of Section 1869.2, which provides:
14
A participant in an endless chain scheme may rescind the contract
15
upon which the scheme is based, and may recover all consideration
16
paid under the scheme, less any amounts paid or consideration
17
provided to the participant under the scheme.45
18
As the Court will recall, a central argument of Herbalife on its Motion to
19 Dismiss was that Plaintiff Bostick was not entitled to rescission or restitution as a
20 matter of fact and law. The Court found that because Plaintiff sold or otherwise
21 gave away his Herbalife products even if this suit satisfied rescissions notice
22 requirement, Plaintiff cannot return the Herbalife products that he purchased
23 However, Plaintiff can still return the International Business Pack that he
24 purchased, if that was still in Bostick s possession. [Dkt No. 40.]
25
This is an important backdrop to this Settlement that shaped its terms. First,
26 Class Counsel wanted to provide an opportunity for all Class Members to return
27 product they still possessed rescission. Under the Settlement, all claimants
28
45
California Civil Code 1689.2.

25
1 returning product, regardless of whether they purchased it from Herbalife or from

2 third parties, will receive 100% of their money back. (Robin Decl. 22.) Second,
3 Class Counsel wanted to provide a remedy for those Class Members who purchased
4 product in pursuit of a business opportunity, but who could not recoup their
5 investment in the product. And the Settlement is effective in compensating those
6 individuals. Claimants will receive significant payments under the Settlement.
7
Finally, the Court can look at the payouts under the Settlement to the Brooks
8 Objectors that filed a claim to assist in concluding that the Business Opportunity
9 Fund compensates legally cognizable claims. First, Susana Perez, who estimates her
10 total losses at over $100,000 will receive $30,000 under the Settlement if it is
11 approved, nearly 30% of her total losses. [Dkt No. 121-1 at 55; Robin Decl. 16.]
12 An examination of Perezs estimated losses demonstrates the tenuousness of her
13 claim for the $100,000. Perez includes $86,400 worth of Herbalife products, and
14 expenses for her to run a Nutrition club, such as rent of $61,240, supplies of $3,000,
15 licenses of $500, and other expenses paid to third parties in her damages estimate.
16 [Dkt No. 121-1 at 55.] First, based on the causes of action, the Court has already
17 ruled that class members are only entitled to rescission under the endless chain
18 claim, and to be entitled to rescission, Ms. Perez must return all product she
19 purchased (which she apparently sold at a $30,000 loss). Second, Perez goes far
20 beyond rescission in her estimates of damages and attempts to include
21 consequential damages for payments allegedly made by her to third parties (rent,
22 licenses, and office supplies) in her estimates. Herbalife could not be held
23 responsible under a rescission theory for much of Perezs alleged expenses, such as
24 rent and supplies, which were paid to third parties not associated with Herbalife.
25 Ms. Perez may participate in the Settlement, and she can still pursue recovery of the
26 remainder of her alleged individual damages claims against third parties who
27 induced her to invest in a nutrition club. Again, those claims are not being released
28 here.
26
Second, Objector Eric Rodensky estimates his total losses of approximately
2 $6,000 arising out of purchases of business leads from a third party lead generator,
3 and expenses to run his Nutrition Club. [Dkt No. 121-1 at 59.] The disparity in
4 losses between Rodensky ($6,000) and Perez ($100,000) to operate a nutrition club
5 demonstrates the difficulty the Court may have had assigning liability and damages
6 to Herbalife for the varying degrees of losses that a distributor may have had: What
7 was attributable to Herbalife, what was attributable to third parties, and what was
8 attributable to individual business decisions? Again, based on the Courts ruling
9 that only rescission was permitted, Mr. Rodensky cannot recover for payments to a
10 third party for sales leads. Yet under the Settlement, Rodensky will receive
11 $2,983.30, nearly 50% of his total losses. (Robin Decl. 17.) Again, Mr. Rodensky
12 can participate in the Settlement and still pursue recovery of the remainder of his
13 alleged damages from the third party lead generator from whom he purchased sales
14 leads.
15
And third, Objector Julio Ulloa estimates his losses of $50,000 for the
16 operation of his Nutrition Club. [Dkt No. 121-1 at 71.] Under the Settlement
17 Agreement Ulloa will receive $14,094.20, a 28% recovery of his losses. (Robin
18 Decl. 18.) Mr. Ulloa can join with Ms. Perez, Mr. Rodensky and the other
19 objectors represented by attorney Brooks in pursuing the third party lead generators
20 to recover their alleged losses paid to third parties.
21
These three objectors who made claims demonstrate that the method of
22 allocation of the $15 million cash component of the Settlement is a fair way of
23 compensating Class Members for losses associated with pursuing their business
24 opportunity.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
27
B.
The Brooks Objectors Misunderstand the Law, the Facts and the
Risks Related to the Packaging & Handling and FedEx Freight
Charge Claims
Objectors next attack the reasonableness of the settlement by claiming that
a potential $260 million claim [related to Herbalifes Packaging and Handling and
FedEx freight charges] gets traded for a change in terminology and that [t]here is
no explanation for why class members should be settling this very strong claim for
less than six cents on the dollar. (Objection [Doc 121at 26, 28].) Plaintiffs brought
separate claims against Herbalifes Packaging and Handling and FedEx
10
Freight charges under California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200
11
and 17500. Plaintiffs alleged that Herbalife deceived the Class by using the fees to
12
generate additional profits instead of passing through or recouping the actual
13
expenses related to its packaging and handling or FedEx freight delivery. Objectors
14
assume that Plaintiffs would easily prevail on these claims as pled and cannot
15
understand why the settlement is not much larger. Objectors, however,
16
misunderstand the law, the facts and the risks related to the claims involving these
17
two charges.
18
First, separately stated, un-bundled charges (like Herbalifes Packaging
19
and Handling and shipping charges) are ubiquitous in todays economy.
20
Unsurprisingly, successfully attacking the legality and reasonableness of such
21
charges under California law is difficult. For instance, in Searle v. Wyndham
22
International, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 4th 1327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002), a California
23
appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Section 17200 and 17500 claims regarding
24
a 17% service charge for hotel room service because the charge was plainly
25
disclosed and because a hotel patron has no legitimate interest in what the hotel
26
does with the service charge. The hotel is free to retain for itself . . . the service
27
charge, or to remit all or some of the revenue to its employees.46 And in
28
46
Id. at 1334.
28
Baghdasarian v. Amazon.com, Inc., the court granted summary judgment
dismissing Section 17200 claims against Amazon.com for retaining undisclosed
profits from a holdback fee because the plaintiffs failed to establish actual
reliance as required by In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 306 (Cal. 2009).47
Here, discovery indicated to Plaintiffs counsel that the Section 17200 and
17500 claims regarding Herbalifes Packaging and Handling charges had several
weaknesses. The 7% charges had been plainly disclosed and explained as relating
to administrative time and labor go[ing] into processing, handling and
marketing. (IPB, Book 4, Exhibit C to First Amended Complaint, at 31 [Dkt. No.
10
70-7].) Based Class Counsels review of purchase data along with other financial
11
data, Class Counsel calculated that Herbalife had significant revenues from
12
packaging and handling charges. But in discovery, Class Counsel learned that
13
Herbalife intended to offer documents and data substantiating costs arguably
14
related to these charges that greatly exceeded this amount. (Dracht Decl. 17.)
15
Discovery indicated that the vagueness, broad phraseology and disclosed
16
explanation of the charge made it difficult to prove (on a class-wide basis) that
17
there had been an overcharge.48
18
Plaintiffs believed the stronger attack, on the merits, related to Herbalifes
19
FedEx Freight charges. Discovery indicated that the revenues from these shipping
20
charges exceeded Herbalifes actual freight expenses during the Class Period.
21
Plaintiffs counsel repeatedly used this overcharge to its advantage during
22
settlement discussions. (Dracht Decl. 17.) But, in candor, Plaintiffs faced
23
considerable challenges on the merits of these claims, such as having to prove that
24
a misrepresentation existed (i.e., would a reasonable person have believed that a
25
47
Baghdasarian v. Amazon.com, Inc.,2009 WL 4823368, at *5-*6 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9,
26 2009).
48
27
28
See e.g., Speigler v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 552 F.Supp.2d 1036, 1046-1047 (C.D.
Cal. 2008) (Dismissing claim that fee improperly included undisclosed profit, holding that
plaintiffs agreed to pay the contract price irrespective of the components included in that
price.).
29
%-based shipping fee was exactly the amount being paid to Federal Express) and
that the named Plaintiffs could prove actual reliance on the misrepresentation in
deciding to have Herbalife ship products to them using Federal Express. Further,
the FedEx Freight charges had been plainly disclosed, and Class Members did not
have to use Federal Express but could have picked up the products locally (if
possible) or used an alternative shipping method of their own choice, which
Herbalife encouraged them to do. (IPB, Book 4, Exhibit C to First Amended
Complaint, at 25, 31 [Dkt. No. 70-7] (encouraging distributors to call the various
freight carriers in your area for rates and service details and plainly noting that its
10
Federal Express home delivery may be one of your best options for shipping)
11
(emphasis added).)
12
Apart from the merits, Plaintiffs also would have faced substantial
13
difficulties in certifying any class or sub-class concerning their claims relating to
14
the FedEx Freight charges. When determining the existence and extent of any
15
award of restitution for Sections 17200 and 17500 claims, a strong argument exists
16
that a court should compare the actual amounts received by a defendant when
17
using the offending practice against the amounts the defendant would have
18
received absent the offending practice (i.e., the but for prices).49 Following the
19
Supreme Courts decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426, 1432
20
(2013), a line of cases failing to certify Sections 17200 and 17500 claims because
21
of the failure of restitutionary models on classwide damages could have presented
22
formidable hurdles for Plaintiffs on certification.50
23
49
See, e.g., Day v. AT&T Corp., 63 Cal. App. 4th 325, 339 (1998) (Section 17203
24 operates only to return to a person those measurable amounts which are wrongfully taken by
25 means of an unfair business practice, and the amount being restored is objectively measurable
26
27
28
as that amount which the defendant would not have received but for the unfairly competitive
practice (italics in original)).
50
See, e.g., Lanovaz v. Twinings North America, Inc., 2014 WL 1652338, Case No. C-1202646-RMW (N.D. Cal. April 24, 2014) (declining to certify false advertising claims because
plaintiffs did not present a legally correct restitution award); Werdebaugh v. Blue Diamond
Growers,No. 12CV2724LHK, 2014 WL 2191901, at *22 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2014) (same);
30
The measure of restitution, as Herbalife repeatedly argued, would create
numerous individuals issues that could have predominated over the common
questions. A separate analysis would be conducted for each product purchase by a
Class Member during the Class Period to determine what shipping cost would have
applied to that purchase but for the deceptive FedEx Freight charge. And
inarguably, the but for shipping costs would vary by time (assuming historical
shipping prices could even be identified), by geographic location (both the to and
from locations would matter), and by the size and shape of the products being
delivered. In light of this, it would be difficult to ascertain the but for shipping
10
11
expense for one product purchase, let alone millions.

With just these few points in mind, the Brooks Objectors completely
12
misunderstand and have grossly oversimplified the law, the facts and the risks
13
associated with the claims involving the Packaging and Handling and FedEx
14
Freight charges. Plaintiffs counsel, by contrast, have carefully analyzed the
15
massive discovery materials received, have carefully researched the codes and
16
guiding case law, and have carefully weighed the pros and cons of moving forward
17
versus settling these claims. Plaintiffs counsel strongly believe that the settlement
18
of these claims is in the best interest of the Class and provides substantial value to
19
the class, in helping obtain a larger cash award and also in preventing Herbalife
20
from utilizing separate Packaging and Handling and FedEx Freight charges in the
21
future. Finally, to dispose of this objection, any Class Member that could not pass
22
along these packaging and handling and shipping costs to a purchaser on resale
23
may make a claim for their loss under the Settlement.
24
25
26
27
Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 12-CV-01831-LHK, 2014 WL 5794873, at *14 (N.D.
28 Cal. Nov. 6, 2014) (same).
31
1
2
3
C.
All Class Members Who Did Not Agree to Arbitrate Can Make
Claims.
The Brooks Objectors attack the propriety of including those individuals
subject to Herbalifes arbitration clause in the Rule 23(b)(2) class governing the
corporate reforms, but excluding them from the monetary damages class under
Rule 23 (b)(3).
First, Plaintiffs and Herbalife have agreed to amend the Stipulation for
Settlement to exclude all individuals whose contract with Herbalife containing an
arbitration clause from the provision of the release. This disposes the objection.
10
Second, the Brooks Objectors make a variety of arguments that Herbalife has
11
somehow waived application of its arbitration agreement. In Fisher v. A.G. Becker
12
Paribas, Inc., 791 F.2d 691, 694 (9th Cir. 1986), the Ninth Circuit held that a party
13
seeking to prove waiver of a right to arbitration must show: (1) knowledge of an
14
existing right to compel arbitration; (2) acts inconsistent with that existing right;
15
and (3) prejudice to the party opposing arbitration resulting from such inconsistent
16
acts. Fisher v. A.G. Becker Paribas, Inc., 791 F.2d 691, 694 (9th Cir. 1986).
17
Because waiver of a contractual right to arbitration is not favored, any party
18
arguing waiver of arbitration bears a heavy burden of proof. Id. The Brooks
19
Objectors have not even attempted to perform a waiver analysis required by
20
Fisher, and their objections must fail.
21
The Brooks Objectors also contend that because Herbalife filed an answer
22
and did not raise arbitration as a defense, there must have been a waiver; but, they
23
do not cite to any cases supporting such proposition and the case law is to the
24
contrary. This objection evidences a complete lack of familiarity with the case.
25
Because plaintiff Dana Bosticks distributor agreement contained no arbitration
26
clause, Herbalife never would have or could have raised arbitration as an
27
affirmative defense in its Answer.
28
32
D.
2
3
Consequential Damages Are Not Recoverable Under the Courts

Prior Ruling or Any Theory of Restitution
The Brooks Objectors claim that failing to permit Class Members to recover
4 consequential damages is unfair and unreasonable. [Dkt. No. 121 p. 34-38.] They
5 claim this arbitrarily excludes a substantial portion of the economic losses suffered
6 by distributors, such as expenses in the operation of nutrition clubs and the purchase
7 of sales leads and other tools from third parties. [Dkt No. 121 p. 35-36.] In their
8 Declarations, the Objectors detail expenses from operating a nutrition club at home,
9 (Acosta, 551, Correa 5), investments or losses (undescribed), (Avila 5, Torres,
10 5, Sanchez 5), rent and other operating costs of running the Nutrition Club,
11 (Calderon 7, Colon 5, Estala 5, Garcia 5, , Leon 5, Vallecillo 5, Pastran 5,
12 Perez 5, Tafoya 5, Ulloa 5), including labor, (Cutzal 5, Martinez 5), to
13 purchasing business leads from third parties and advertising expenses paid to third
14 parties, (Rodensky 5).
15
But Bostick argued that he was entitled to complete relief, including any
16 restitution of damages and any consequential damages to which he is entitled in

17 his Opposition to Herbalifes Motion to Dismiss. [Dkt No. 27 at 24:14-9.] The
18 Court in its Order denying the motion took a narrow view of the relief available
19 under California Civil Code 1689.2. [Dkt No. 40 p.10-11.]
20
While Plaintiffs maintained throughout litigation and mediation that relief
21 extended beyond just rescission to include restitution at the least this was
22 heavily disputed by Herbalife and would have been contested at the certification
23 and merits stages of the litigation.
24
Nothing in California Civil Code 1689.2 suggests that its plain language is
25 modified by other provisions in the Civil Code. And there is no controlling case law
26 indicating that consequential damages flow from a violation of section 1689.2. The
27
51
All declaration cites are to Dkt No. 121-2, hyperlinked to the corresponding page
28 containing the referenced paragraph.
33
1 case cited by the Brooks Objectors, Li v. EFT Holdings, Inc., to support their
2 proposition is tepid: The Court is not convinced that rescission is the only remedy
3 under the endless chain statute.52
4
Here, the settlement gives relief to Class Members losses based on
5 rescissionthe Product Return Componentand in addition allows Claimants to

6 be compensated for the losses they incurred in reselling Herbalife product. The
7 latter form of recovery is restitution that might not be available if Plaintiffs
8 prevailed and were limited to restitution with a concomitant requirement to return
9 product. Had the Class been limited to rescission only, Class Members may have
10 been limited to returning any leftover product and perhaps returning their IBPs.
11
While seemingly straightforward, even this recovery would have presented
12 problems. First, Class Members would have had to return their IBPs; it seems
13 unlikely that many disaffected former Herbalife distributors would have retained
14 these through trial and any anticipated appeals. Even if they had, the IBPs
15 contained product and the mini-IBPs contained product samples, which Class
16 Members likely already consumed and which their failure to return could affect
17 their ability to recover on rescission. Extending the Class Members recovery in
18 settlement to also include restitution for losses associated with the purchase and
19 resale of product follows Class Counsels reading of California Civil Code 1689.2
20 and the goals of restitution under Sections 17200 and 17500. This additional
21 restitution is strong evidence that the proposed Settlement is in the best interests of
22 the Class.
23
And pursuing consequential damages on a class-wide basis would have made
24 the class difficult, if not impossible, to certify because it would have raised
25 innumerable individual issues and difficulties of administration. For class members
26 that operated nutrition club multiple variables likely would have been at play that
27
52
28
Li v. EFT Holdings, Inc., 2:13-cv-08832-DSF-CW, Dkt No. 121; 2015 U.S. Lexis 1065
at *4, (C.D.Cal. 2015)
34
1 determined the success or failure of the club. Anita Vasko, a representative Plaintiff
2 that operated a nutrition club in a prime real estate location at a loss sold other
3 products and nutrition coaching services from her nutrition club, raising the
4 question for Class Counsel whether the Court would allow damages to be recovered
5 by Vasko and other nutrition club operators when the damages were based in part
6 on their own independent business decisions, e.g. the rent they agreed to pay for the
7 space in which they operated their club.
8
Even in a settlement context, consequential damages would have been nearly
9 impossible to administer. The Brooks Objectors own descriptions of their alleged

10 damages highlight the difficulty of drawing the line in the sand on what would be
11 an appropriate consequential damage: Should Herbalife pay the rent or mortgage for
12 someone operating a Nutrition Club out of their home? Should Herbalife pay for all
13 expenses incurred in the operation of a nutrition club? How much corroborating
14 information would be required for claimants to recoup investments, or other
15 losses? And if they purchased equipment such as a blender or a computer for the
16 operation of their business (and are still using it) is that a consequential damage that
17 the Court would require Herbalife to pay?
18
For the Class Members who purchased sales leads or tools from third parties,
19 the Brooks Objectors legal counsels prior class actions against Herbalife provided
20 a cautionary tale to Plaintiffs what happens when Class Counsel overloads a case
21 with facts and theories. (Declaration of Douglas Brooks dated March 23, 2015, [Dkt
22 No. 121-2, 4] (I obtained substantial class settlements for Herbalife distributors in
23 cases involving lead generation systems operated by high level Herbalife
24 distributors.). The Brooks Objectors legal counsel brought a nationwide class
25 action, Jacobs v. Herbalife et al., 2:02-cv-01431-SJO-RC (C.D. Cal), against
26 Herbalife and a third party tool and lead sales company. (Foley Decl. 10, Exhibit
27 X, Declaration of Douglas Brooks 12 (Jacobs) dated September 2, 2004 (Decl.
28 Brooks Jacobs).) But in Jacobs, the court declined to accept supplemental
35
1 jurisdiction over the California state law claims (Endless Chain) and dismissed
2 those claims for all defendants, including Herbalife. (Decl. Brooks Jacobs 30.) The
3 plaintiffs then settled the case, using confirmatory discovery to justify the
4 settlement. (Decl. Brooks Jacobs 35.) That settlement allowed for a reversionary
5 $4 million cash component and a product rebate component of $2 million. (Decl.
6 Brooks Jacobs 38.) Attorney Brooks, sought $1.4 million in fees. (Decl. Brooks
7 Jacobs 53.) In justifying the settlement in Jacobs against one of the eleven
8 objectors complaining about not naming other third parties as defendants, Mr.
9 Brooks stated: Moreover, the Settlement does not release Financial Success
10 Systems or any other Herbalife promotional system, and distributors are free to
11 pursue claims against such entitles if they so choose. (Decl. Brooks Jacobs
12 51.)The same goes for the objectors here. All of the objectors represented by Mr.
13 Brooks can both participate in the Bostick settlement and also pursue claims against
14 third parties for their consequential damages based on payments made to those third
15 parties.
16
Following the Jacobs settlement (which apparently secured no corporate
17 reform), the Brooks Objectors legal counsel filed another case, Minton v. Herbalife
18 et al.BC338305 (Sup.Ct. L.A.). This was a putative class action concerning
19 Herbalife leads against Herbalife and various third parties who actually sold the
20 leads to class members. (Foley Decl. 13, Exhibit I, Declaration of Douglass
21 Brooks 7 (Minton) (Decl. Brooks Minton).) Even prior to Dukes, Comcast, and
22 Mazza, the California Superior Court in Mr. Brooks Minton case declined to certify
23 a nationwide class, and instead conditionally certified two California classes of
24 plaintiffs. The Brooks Objectors counsel settled that case for $1.75 million. (Decl.
25 Brooks Minton 17 (seeking attorneys fees not to exceed 35% of the Settlement
26 Fund (21)).
27
The Brooks Objectors legal counsels litigation strategies against Herbalife,
28 his mixed successes and failures, and his settlements informed Class Counsel on the
36
1 pitfalls of seeking attenuated derivative liability and consequential damages theories

2 against multiple actors in prosecuting the Bostick case against Herbalife. Based on
3 Class Counsels investigations, there were multiple lead generators and tool
4 companies that sold leads and tools to class members. (Dracht Decl. 18.) Class
5 Counsel analyzed these claims and concluded they presented difficulties in
6 management and, more importantly, in class certification. (Dracht Decl. 18.)
7
First, there would need to be a class representative for each company that
8 sold tools or leads or coaching or the claims would not be certified. Class Counsel
9 estimated there were over a dozen such companies. Second, Plaintiffs must name
10 these companies and not just find liability as against these companies but also find
11 derivative liability of Herbalife for the acts and omissions of these separate
12 independent companies. Each tool and lead company would present its own
13 defenses and claims and, in Class Counsels experience, would have sufficiently
14 paralyzed the litigation with appeals and bankruptcies such that the hydra would
15 have prevented Plaintiffs from ever litigating their claims against Herbalife. Third,
16 Class Counsel expected, in light of publicly known fights between Herbalife and
17 some of these lead generators, that inclusion of some or all of them in the suit likely
18 would have spawned cross claims and potential third party claims, further
19 complicating the case and making class certification less likely and more difficult to
20 obtain. An arbitration agreement between any named plaintiff and a third party
21 would threaten to stay the entire Bostick litigation pending an arbitration under 9
22 U.S.C. 3 . Dana Bostick had an agreement with one such tool provider that
23 referenced an arbitration agreement. (Dracht Decl. 18.) And finally, the more
24 complex the theory and facts, the more impossible the case would be to certify, as
25 individual issues would predominate.
26
Class Counsel carefully considered all of these issues and streamlined this
27 case against Herbalife only, which has resulted in a fairly quick and very substantial
28 settlement for the Class while maintaining the ability of Class members harmed by
37
1 third party lead generators to sue them if warranted. The Court should reject the
2 objection that the Settlement does not allow for a claim of consequential damages
3 because it is contrary to the Courts earlier ruling, contradicts restitution principles,
4 and is a classic bird in hand instead of a prospective flock in the bush [or sky in
5 this case]53 argument.
6
7
E.
Plaintiffs Are Adequate to Seek Corporate Reform
The Brooks Objectors argue that the Class representatives lack standing to
8 represent the class in having Herbalife institute corporate reforms because none of
9 the named Plaintiffs are still Herbalife distributors. The point is that Plaintiffs are
10 getting corporate reform without having to battle at class certification whether the
11 Class Representatives were adequate. Moreover, objectors argument does not
12 distinguish controlling law in the Ninth Circuit,54 including cases from this district:
13
If the Court were to construe Article III standing for FAL and UCL
14
claims as narrowly as the Defendant advocates, federal courts would
15
be precluded from enjoining false advertising under California
16
consumer protection laws because a plaintiff who had been injured
17
would always be deemed to avoid the cause of the injury thereafter
18
(once bitten, twice shy) and would never have Article III standing.
19 [Collecting cases.]55 Construing Article III standing as narrowly as

20 defendant suggests in consumer protection statutes . . . would effectively bar
21 any consumer who avoids the offending product from injunctive relief.56
22
As to any judicial imprimatur from the corporate reform, the Brooks
23
53
Natl Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 526 (C.D. Cal.2004)
24 (citations omitted).
54
Objectors cite to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2559-60 (2011), but,
25
26
27
28
Dukes involved employment based claims, not Cal. Bus. & Prof. Codes 17200 et seq. and
17500 et seq.
55
Henderson v. Gruma Corp., No. CV 10-04173 AHM AJWX, 2011 WL 1362188, at *7
(C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011) (Hon. Matz).
56
Larsen v. Trader Joes Co., No. C 11-05188 SI, 2012 WL 5458396, at *4 (N.D. Cal.
June 14, 2012).
38
1 Objectors acknowledge that [t]he new release language in the Amendment

2 cures this defect and ensures that government agencies and prosecutors will
3 not be prejudiced in their enforcement actions against Herbalife. [Dkt No.
4 121, 43:5-9.]
5
F.
6
7
The Corporate Reforms Provides Substantial Benefit to the Class

to the Detriment of Herbalife
Objectors and proposed amici oppose the approval of the Settlement
8 Agreement because the corporate reform component fails to live up to their ideal
9 agreement. But the Settlement Agreement provides substantial relief (fair and
10 adequate relief) by precluding Herbalife from certain allegedly unfair, unlawful,
11 fraudulent, and or deceptive business practices. The Settlement Agreement is
12 reasonable, fair and adequate. Objectors and amici fail to demonstrate a proper
13 basis to deny final approval due to any alleged inadequate corporate reform.
14
[W]hether a settlement is fundamentally fair within the meaning of Rule
15 23(e) is different from the question whether the settlement is perfect in the
16 estimation of the reviewing court.57 It is neither for the court to reach any ultimate
17 conclusions regarding the merits of the dispute, nor to second guess the settlement
18 terms.58 Settlement is the product of compromise, and is not to be judged against
19 a hypothetical or speculative measure of what might have been achieved by the
20 negotiators.59
21
With these principles in mind, the reasonableness, fairness and adequacy of the
22 negotiated corporate reforms are apparent; and Objectors protests are opinion23 based arguments about what policy changes would best address the issues raised in
24 the First Amended Complaint. This is not a basis for disapproving the Settlement
25
26
27
28
57
Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 819 (9th Cir. 2012).
Moore v. Verizon Commcns Inc., 2013 WL 4610764, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28,
2013) (citations omitted).
59
Dennis v. Kellogg Co., No. 09-CV-1786-L WMC, 2013 WL 6055326, at *2 (S.D. Cal.
Nov. 14, 2013), appeal dismissed (May 15, 2014).
58
39
1 Agreement reached after substantial investigation and arms-length negotiation. That

2 these reforms are not all that Objectors would desire does not, as a matter of law,
3 render the Settlement Agreement unreasonable, unfair or inadequate, and the Parties
4 respectfully request that the Court overrule Objectors opposition and grant final
5 approval of the Settlement Agreement.
6
1.
The Changes to Herbalifes Corporate Policies Address
Allegations in the Amended Complaint and are Valuable to
the Settlement Class.
The Settlement Agreement requires Herbalife to institute and maintain for
10 three years thirteen specific corporate policies. Objectors claim there will be no
11 oversight or enforcement of the corporate policies. This is a curious claim as the
12 policy changes form a material part of the Settlement Agreement (Sec. 5) and every
13 class member, as a beneficiary of the Settlement Agreement, may seek enforcement
14 of its terms should she believe Herbalife is failing to comply. [Dkt No. 95]. That
15 Plaintiffs counsel specifically stated they were not seeking fees for overseeing
16 compliance with the corporate reforms does not mean such oversight will not be
17 performed. Plaintiffs counsel will perform such oversight. The Court retains
18 jurisdiction over the Settlement Agreement (something Objectors concede,
19 Objection [Doc. 121], 45: 20-23), and Plaintiffs counsel can easily to seek
20 enforcement of the corporate reforms by the Court should Herbalife fail to fulfill its
21 commitment as contemplated by the Settlement Agreement.
22
Objectors claim the thirteen policy changes provide illusory relief to the
23 class, and fail to address the allegations of the Complaint. Objection [Doc. 121],
24 45: 6-8. This conclusion is meritless. Even a cursory review of the negotiated
25 corporate policy reforms shows they relate back to First Amended Complaint,
26 providing substantial benefit to the Settling Class and a detriment to Herbalife.
27
First, Plaintiffs alleged violations of California consumer protection laws by
28 charging both a Packaging and Handling fee simultaneous with an Order

40
1 Shipping Charge. Plaintiffs claimed the separate charges suggested the Order
2 Shipping Charge was a pass through, when it contained an element of profit for
3 Herbalife. Herbalife adamantly disputes these allegations or that the charges were
4 unfair or misleading. The Settlement Agreement precludes Herbalife from charging
5 members two separate fees, removing any confusion that one is a pass through
6 charge with no profit element. This reform benefits all those who are or may
7 become Herbalife distributors and relate to allegations of the FAC.
8
Second, Plaintiffs claimed that Herbalife violated Penal Code Section 327 as
9 an endless chain scheme. Herbalife denied the allegation in part because its
10 products were largely used by self-consuming members. The Settlement Agreement
11 addresses this claim by requiring Herbalife to acknowledge this position by
12 prohibiting it from defining members as distributors. Objectors claim that the
13 change is done purely to shield Herbalife from regulatory violations is meritless.
14 The change in language substantially clarifies the difference between a self15 consuming member and a distributor of Herbalifes products pursuing Herbalife as
16 a business opportunity.
17
Third, Herbalife must maintain a policy of discouraging members from
18 incurring debt in pursuit of Herbalife business opportunities. Objectors do not

19 disagree with this reform, but claim Herbalife should be compelled to go further, by
20 including debt counseling at training events and monitoring Herbalife customers
21 credit card purchases. Objectors attempt to cast doubt on the adequacy of the
22 Settlement Agreement because more or stronger steps could, in an imagined
23 instance, address the Objectors concerns.
24
Objectors state: A better term would be for Herbalife to discourage
25 participants from spending their hard earned savings on the pursuit of the Herbalife
26 business opportunity. This contention is not a realistic expectation of negotiations,
27 however, and demonstrates Objectors unfounded conclusion that the reforms are
28
41
1 inadequate. It is both impractical and unrealistic to expect that Herbalife would

2 discourage its customer base from buying its products.
3
Fourth, Objectors do not dispute that requiring Herbalife to pay shipping
4 charges for shipping returned products benefits the class. Instead, they complain
5 that the policy change is not enough because it fails to address that current
6 Herbalife policy requires the member to terminate her membership as a condition to
7 receiving a full refund for the return of products. However, this reform was not
8 intended to save members from their own decision to invest in Herbalifes products
9 or business, but to provide them a means of recouping both the cost of product and
10 the return shipping cost should they decide that their investment decision was one
11 they regret making. It removes from the member and shifts to Herbalife the burden
12 of paying for returned product.
13
Fifth, Objectors cannot dispute that requiring Herbalife to maintain a
14 compliance department to enforce its policies will benefit its members. Rather, they
15 criticize this reform on the unsubstantiated basis that Herbalife made the change
16 out of self defense, not out of any concern for its distributors. This conjecture is
17 no basis for an objection. It is true, as the Settlement Agreement itself points out,
18 this litigation was at least in part the inspiration for Herbalifes agreement to adopt
19 and maintain the corporate reforms, but Objectors have no basis for knowing, much
20 less objecting to, Herbalifes motivations. (Settlement Agreement, Sec. 5.1.2 At
21 least in part as a result of the filing of the lawsuit, Herbalife implemented . . . the
22 following corporate policies . . . .).
23
Sixth, the Settlement Agreement requires Herbalife to prohibit the selling of
24 leads. Coupled with the compliance department reform, this reform is great for
25 Herbalife members. Objectors do not disagree. Rather, they predict that without
26 additional monitoring, Herbalifes high level distributors will find ways to evade
27 the rule, and Herbalife will look the other way for as long as possible. There are
28 several problems with this baseless assumption. Plaintiffs counsel will be
42
1 monitoring Herbalifes compliance. So the assumption is faulty from its inception.

2 Any class member, as a beneficiary of the settlement, can monitor and ensure
3 compliance. Finally, the release provision of the Settlement Agreement does not
4 release lead generators for lead generating. If Objectors believe they have claims
5 against such lead generators, they may bring them.
6
Seventh, Objectors complain that prohibiting Herbalife from requiring new
7 members to purchase product as a condition of becoming an Herbalife member is

8 not a helpful reform. Objection [Doc. 121], 51: 1-12. This objection misses the
9 point. One of the classic Amway rules that companies implement to establish that
10 they are not an endless chain is the initial investment rule. This rule prohibits the
11 company from requiring the purchase of investment inventory by a new distributor
12 as a prerequisite for the right to sell products and receive rewards.60 This reform
13 requires Herbalife to maintain this rule and is good for members.
14
Eighth, Herbalife must require its members, prior to signing a lease or opening
15 a Nutrition Club in a non-residential location, to have been a member for at least 90

16 days and to have received Nutrition Club operator training. This prevents new
17 members, without the proper knowledge and experience with Herbalife, from
18 investing too heavily before they have the proper training, instruction, and
19 understanding of the benefits and risks of such investments. Objectors criticize this
20 reform by reference to declarations of members who apparently were unsuccessful
21 with a nutrition club. This reform, however, provides members time to make
22 informed decisions about how or whether to invest their money, not as a guarantee
23 of success to any member.
24
Ninth, the Settlement Agreement ensures transparency of Herbalife member
25 success and failure rates by requiring Herbalife to include its Statement of Average
26 Gross Compensation (SAGC) of members with any membership application and a
27 requirement that any applicant acknowledge having reviewed the SAGC. The
28
60
In re Amway Corp., 93 F.T.C. 618, 716 (1979).

43
1 SAGC must contain the total number and percentage of all members who receive no
2 compensation payment directly from Herbalife. Herbalife can no longer disclose
3 only those who made money with the Herbalife business opportunity in the
4 preceding year (as it did for multiple years of the Class Period), but also must
5 disclose those who made no money pursuing the business opportunity. This change
6 does not accept the Lieberman 73% survey. Rather, it provides prospective
7 members critical pieces of information regarding the fact that the vast majority of
8 Herbalife members do not receive checks from Herbalife. This transparency is a
9 critical reform for members and potential members, to the detriment of Herbalife.
10
The Objectors do not claim these are unhelpful changes. Rather, as with other
11 complaints, they claim the changes do not go far enough. Objectors would require
12 Herbalife to disclose its members business expenses and additional expenses
13 incurred by Herbalife Nutrition Club operators. The problem is that Herbalife
14 members are independent contractors. So the amount each member might spend on
15 marketing or a nutrition club is entirely up to the member.
16
That Herbalife implemented some of those practices prior to final approval of
17 the Settlement Agreement does not render them valueless to the Settlement Class or
18 unrelated to Plaintiffs allegations. And the Settlement Class may enforce them as
19 material terms of the Settlement Agreement should Herbalife violate any of these
20 required reforms.
21
22
23
2.
The Timing or Duration of the Corporate Reforms does not

Diminish Their Value.
Objectors and amicus curiae TINA and NCL claim the corporate reforms
24 lack any value because many predate settlement and because they are limited to
25 three years. Both claims lack merit.
26
First, they cite no authority suggesting that policy changes implemented prior
27 to settlement renders them valueless, particularly where class members can enforce
28 them. In Staton v. Boeing Co., cited by TINA, the court of appeals reversed the
44
1 district courts approval of a consent decree because of considerations relating to

2 the award of attorneys fees and because of the structure of the damages payments
3 established by the decree, noting [d]espite all of the foregoing concerns, we
4 would not overturn the district courts determination to approve the settlement as
5 fair were the release and injunctive provisions the only aspects of the decree that are
6 troublesome. 61 And In re Dry Max Pampers Litig., which disapproved a settlement
7 providing a large attorneys fees award, had no cash for the unnamed class
8 members and only the temporary reinstatement of a refund policy that already had
9 been in place, does not apply here.62 Courts can and do approve settlement
10 agreements in which defendants implement policy changes prior to settlement.63
11 The cases cited by TINA all have the same thing in common: little to no economic
12 relief to the proposed class, which is not the case here.64 TINA and NCL fail to
13 articulate why the class would benefit from a delay in implementation of reforms
14 they concede are beneficial.
15
Second, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that even temporary injunctive
16 relief may provide significant value to plaintiffs and constitute a valid and valuable
17 part of approved final class action settlements.65
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
61
327 F.3d 938, 945, 962 (9th Cir. 2003).

724 F.3d 713, 715, 722 (6th Cir. 2013).
63
See, e.g., Miller v. Ghiradelli Chocolate Co., No. 12-CV-04936, 2015 WL 758094, at
*1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2015) (approving settlement that required defendant to maintain for three
years, certain labeling changes to all the products at issue, changes that it implemented during
th[e] lawsuit.) appeal filed Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., (9th Cir. March 20, 2015); Torres
v. Pet Extreme, No. 1:13-CV-01778-LJO, 2015 WL 224752, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2015)
amended, No. 1:13-CV-01778-LJO, 2015 WL 648241 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2015); Moore v. Verizon
Commc'ns Inc., No. C09-1823 SBA, 2013 WL 4610764, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2013);
64
See e.g., Vassalle v. Midland Funding, LLC, 708 F.3d 747, 755-56 (6th Cir. 2013),
(disparity in the relief afforded under the settlement to the named plaintiffs [$2,000 each], on the
one hand, and the unnamed class members, on the other hand [only $17.38 each] while noting
that the single year of injunctive relief was of little value.); Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., 772 F.3d 778,
785 (7th Cir. 2014) ( of the unnamed victims would be modestly compensated [approximately
$29 each] versus the $5,000 awards to each of the six named plaintiffs and because labels were
changed in trivial respects for only twenty-four months)
65
. See, e.g., Miller v. Ghiradelli Chocolate Co., No. 12-CV-04936, 2015 WL 758094, at
*11 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2015) (finding that defendants agreement in settlement to maintain for
45
62
1
2
G.
The Release Is Appropriate
Objectors and amici criticize the alleged scope of release, claiming the
3 Settlement Class is forever precluded from suing Herbalife and instead, releases
4 Herbalife from all claims that were or could have been raised in this action
5 (Settlement Agreement 8.) This is not true.
6
First, the release does not extend to any future claims, which were not and
7 could not have been raised in the FAC. Second, the Settlement Agreement does not
8 prevent the Settlement Class from participating in any government investigations
9 involving Herbalife. And if in three years, Herbalife subjects itself to potential
10 liability by reverting to the challenged and changed corporate policies, future
11 plaintiffs, including members in the Settlement Class, could seek to hold Herbalife
12 liable again. Third, the release does not include claims against any of the lead
13 generation companies. (Joint Decl. 63 [Dkt. No. 96].) These types of companies
14 have been publicly criticized for inducing new members/distributors to spend large
15 sums of money on lists of potential leads and materials to attract potential leads
16 that, in reality, had little value. (Joint Decl. 63 [Dkt. No. 96].) Plaintiffs and the
17 Settlement Class remain free to bring viable claims on either a class-wide or
18 individual basis against such companies if actionable conduct occurred and resulted
19 in economic loss. (Joint Decl. 63 [Dkt. No. 96].) Objectors cite no legal basis for
20 their stated concern that lead generation claims against Herbalife directors would be
21 released given that such persons are covered by the Release only as directors, and
22 not as individuals.
23
24
25
26
27
28
three years certain labeling changes implemented during lawsuit had significant value to class
members and giving the settlement final approval), appeal filed Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate
Co., (9th Cir. March 20, 2015); Guerrero v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C 12-04026 WHA,
2014 WL 4351113, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2014); Arnold v. Fitflop USA, LLC, No. 11-CV0973 W KSC, 2014 WL 1670133, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014), appeal dismissed (Oct. 20,
2014); Bruno v. Quten Research Inst., LLC, No. SACV 11-00173 DOC EX, 2013 WL 990495, at
*1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013).
46
H.
Class Notice and Claims Process Satisfies Due Process
2 Five Brooks Objectors, Calderon, Colon, Leon, Sanchez, and Vallecillo,

3 complained that they did not receive timely notice. Two other objectors, Konstance
4 Armstrong and Wyman Jong also objected because they too did not receive timely
5 notice. (Dracht Decl. Exh. A.) As explained above, Class Counsel had previously
6 secured the agreement of Herbalife to allow late claims where late notice was an
7 issue. Upon receipt of these objections, Class Counsel arranged for the Brooks
8 Objectors and Armstrong and Jong to make late claims, which they did. (Dracht
9 Decl. Exs. B and C.) Armstrong and Jong withdrew their objections. (Dracht Decl.
10 Ex. B.) As explained above, Class Members who may have received late notice are
11 being permitted to make a claim on the cash fund component of the Settlement up
12 to April 30, 2015 or upon exhaustion of funds, whichever is first. Given these
13 accommodations the Court should overrule this objection.
14
15
I.
Cy Pres Recipient
Plaintiffs and Herbalife have agreed that the business opportunity awards to
16 be paid from the $15 million cash component can be increased from 50% to 75% of
17 the claimants losses, and Class Counsel reserves the right to request even a higher
18 amount once all late claims are processed.
19
TINAs entire argument as to the cy pres award centers on its contention that
20 the use of a cy pres award in this case, where the majority of class members will
21 receive a maximum of $20 is inappropriate and unfair. This argument finds no
22 support in the Ninth Circuit. In this circuit, the cy pres doctrine allows a court to
23 distribute unclaimed or non-distributable portions of a class action settlement fund
24 to the next best class of beneficiaries.66 TINA has raised no objection to the
25 reasonableness factors, and it is presumed that TINA agrees that each of these has
26 been met.
27
Here, the cy pres remedy will account for the nature of the plaintiffs lawsuit
28
66
Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011).
47
1 because the lawsuit concerns misleading marketing to consumers in a multi-level

2 marketing scheme, and the goal of the proposed cy pres recipient, Consumer
3 Federation of America (CFA), is to aid consumers. The interests of the silent
4 class members will be met because the money that will go to the CFA will benefit
5 these consumers. The CFA and Consumers Union have been invited to give
6 congressional testimony far more frequently than any other consumer groups.
7 (Brobeck Decl., 5 [Dkt No. 97].) And it has been a leader in consumer and
8 financial education, utilizing coalitions, networks, social media and the press to
9 disseminate messages through both hard copy and online materials. (Brobeck Decl.,
10 5 [Dkt No. 97].) And, if enough money goes to the CFA through the cy pres
11 award, it may develop a new education initiative that could more disseminate
12 consumer messages regarding multi-level marketing developed by the Federal
13 Trade Commission. (Brobeck Decl., 7-8 [Dkt No. 97].) 67
14
The analysis within the Ninth Circuit ends there. The Ninth Circuit authority
15 relied on by TINA does not stand for the proposition that the cy pres award is
16 inappropriate based on the amount recovery obtained by the individual class
17 members. And each one of the Ninth Circuit cases relied upon by TINA is
18 distinguishable, each finding that the cy pres remedy was improper because (unlike
19 here) it did not account for the nature of the plaintiffs lawsuit, the objectives of the
20 underlying statutes, and the interests of the silent class members.
21
22
VI.
CONCLUSION
The settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and Plaintiffs respectfully
23 request this Court grant final approval to the Settlement Agreement and enter the
24 proposed order.
25
26
27
67
28
See e. In re Apple iPhone/iPod Warranty Litig., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64573, 40 (N.D.
Cal. 2014)
48
1 DATED: April 13, 2015

2

FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
3
4
5
6
/s/Thomas G. Foley, Jr.

Philip D. Dracht
Scott M. Petersen
Jason W. Hardin
7
8

Justin P. Karczag
9
10
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
49

1
2
3
4
5

Fabian & Clendenin
Telephone: (801) 531-8900
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Telephone: (805) 962-9495
15 DANA BOSTICK, et al.,

16
PLAINTIFF,
17
18 vs.
19 HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL
20 OF AMERICA, INC., a Nevada
Corporation, HERBALIFE
21 INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Nevada
22 Corporation, HERBALIFE, LTD a
Cayman Island Corporation,
23
24
DEFENDANTS.
25
Case No.: 2:13-cv-02488-BRO (RZx)

IN OPPOSITION TO (1) TINAS
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF [DKT
NO. 114] AND (2) NCLS MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF [DKT No.
117]
Date: May 11, 2015
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Place: Courtroom 14-Spring St. Floor
26
27
28
Case No. 2:13-cv-02488-BRO (RZx)

OPPOSITION TO (1) TINAS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND (2) NCLS
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

I.
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

On April 8, 2013, Dana Bostick, on behalf of himself and others similarly
2
3
situated, filed a complaint against Herbalife International of America, Inc.,
Herbalife International, Inc., and Herbalife Ltd.

On October 31, 2014, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a Stipulation of
5
6
Settlement (Settlement Agreement). The Settlement Agreement provides (1)
economic relief for the Settlement Class through cash awards and refunds for
returned product and (2) thirteen specific agreed-to corporate reforms. After
careful consideration, this Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of
10
the Settlement Agreement and directed that notice of the settlement be
11
disseminated to the Class (the Preliminary Approval Order). Dkt. No. 105.
12
On March 16, 2015, two corporations who are not class members but who
13
call themselves Truth In Advertising, Inc. (TINA) and National Consumers
14
League Inc. (NCL) filed motions for leave to file amicus curiae briefs in
15
opposition to the settlement. Dkt. No. 114 (TINAs brief); Dkt. No. 117 (NCLs
16
brief). Both claim their purpose and accompanying brief is to object to the
17
Settlement Agreement as fundamentally unfair to the class members. Dkt. No.
18
114 at 1; Dkt. No. 117 at 1. Their motions are essentially identical. Even the
19
summaries of what they claim their proposed amicus briefs provide are identical.
20
The Court should deny both motions. Neither TINA nor NCL offer the
21
Court helpful information or a unique perspective; TINA and NCL do not
22
represent Class Members interests; and neither TINA nor NCL have provided
23
important disclosures required of amici to disclose any possible bias or motives
24
they may have.
25
II.
26
27
ARGUMENT
Whether to consider an amicus brief is solely within the discretion of the
court, however, amicus briefing is seldom appropriate at the trial court level where
28
2

the parties are adequately represented by experienced counsel.1 The extensive
discretion of district courts is such that the denial of permission to appear as
amicus curiae is not subject to appeal.2 In order to guide district courts faced with
the request of a proposed amicus curiae the First Circuit has instructed:
we believe a district court lacking joint consent of the parties should
go slow in accepting, and even slower in inviting, an amicus brief
unless, as a party, although short of a right to intervene, the amicus
has a special interest that justifies his having a say, or unless the court
feels that existing counsel may need supplementing assistance.3
10
A.
The Perspective TINA and NCL Seek to Provide Is Unhelpful.
11
The role of amicus curiae is to assist in a case of general public interest,
12
supplementing the efforts of counsel, and drawing the courts attention to law that
13
escaped consideration.4 They should assist the Court, and give[] information of
14
some matter of law in regard to which the court is doubtful or mistaken, rather
15
than one who gives a highly partisan, . . . account of the facts.5 To be true amicus
16
curiae, TINA and NCL have the burden of showing that [their] participation is
17
useful to or otherwise desirable to the court.6 Their motions and proposed briefs,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
See Ryan v. CFTC, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997); Sonoma Falls Developers,
LLC v. Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc., 272 F. Supp. 2d 919, 925 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (District courts
welcome amicus briefs if the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the
court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide.) (quoting Cobell v.
Norton, 246 F Supp 2d 59, 62 (D.D.C.2003).
2
Palladino v. Governor of Pennsylvania, 589 F. App'x 61, 64 n. 2 (3d Cir. 2014) (noting
that its jurisdiction would not extend to the District Courts decision denying Schneller leave to
act as amicus curiae); S.E.C. v. Better Life Club of Am., Inc., No. 98-5006, 1998 WL 389102, at
*1 (D.C. Cir. June 1, 1998) (the denial of a motion to participate as amicus curiae is not
appealable.); Boston & Providence R. R. Stockholders Dev. Grp. v. Smith, 333 F.2d 651, 652
(2d Cir. 1964) ( A denial of a motion to intervene as amicus curiae is not appealable).
3
Strasser v. Doorley, 432 F.2d 567, 569 (1st Cir. 1970).
4
Miller-Wohl Co., 694 F.2d 203, 204.
5
New England Patriots Football Club, Inc. v. Univ. of Colorado, 592 F.2d 1196, 1198
(1st Cir. 1979) (quoting 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary 188 (3d ed. 1914)) (internal citations
omitted).
6
In re Roxford Foods Litig., 790 F. Supp. 987, 997 (E.D. Cal. 1991) (quoting United
States v. Louisiana, 751 F.Supp. 608, 620 (E.D.La.1990)).
3

however, provide no such assistance and, therefore, fail to meet their burden of
showing helpfulness.
TINA and NCLs amicus briefs offer nothing more to the court than a
cursory comparison of the allegations of Plaintiffs latest complaint with the
Settlement Agreement. Their analysis lacks any substance, and ignores the
extensive discovery between the parties, which included: (1) preparing and
overseeing massive written discovery to Herbalife and discovery responses by the
named Plaintiffs; (2) analyzing over 148,000 pages of internal Herbalife
documents that were produced, including several gigabytes of confidential
10
Herbalife data, numerous documents provided by former Herbalife members or
11
distributors and other persons, and large amounts of Herbalifes public materials
12
and other publicly available documents; (3) participating in several depositions; (4)
13
participating in interviews with former Herbalife members or distributors; (5)
14
participating in site inspections of Herbalifes quality control facilities, research
15
and development facilities, Los Angeles distribution center and a Los Angeles area
16
nutrition club; and (6) selecting and consulting with experts (including an
17
economist for class certification). TINA and NCL seek to advocate their position
18
with no idea who or how many class members have made claims, what those
19
claims currently look like, or whether the settlement fairly and adequately
20
addresses them.
21
Amicus curiae are traditionally non-partisan providers of a legal perspective
22
or information to the court,7 but TINA and NCL offer only unhelpful and
23
unnecessary conclusions. As one court explained: A district court must keep in
24
mind the differences between the trial and appellate court forums in determining
25
whether it is appropriate to allow an amicus curiae to participate. Chief among
26
those differences is that a district court resolves fact issues. An amicus who argues
27
28
Funbus Systems, Inc. v. California Public Utilities Com., 801 F.2d 1120, 112425 (9th
Cir.1986).
4

facts should rarely be welcomed.8 Yet that is precisely what TINA and NCLs
briefs do: argue in an unsupported and conclusory matter that the allegations in
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are factually correct and that the settlement should
therefore not be approved. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 117 at 2 (noting NCLs conclusion
that Herbalife is in fact a sophisticated pyramid scheme.); Dkt. No. 114 at 3
(TINA.org opposes the proposed settlement). This type of cursory analysis does
not aid the Court with anything, let alone unique information or perspective that
can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to
provide.9
10
In truth, TINA and NCL are objectors without standing masquerading as
11
amici. Contrary to the purpose of an amicus filing, both TINA and NCL claim to
12
represent consumers in some capacity, Dkt. No. 117 at 1 & Dkt. No. 114 at 1,
13
but they both ultimately concede their real purpose is to object to the settlement.
14
See, e.g., Dkt. No. 117 at 2 (noting NCLs conclusion that Herbalife is in fact a
15
sophisticated pyramid scheme.); Dkt. No. 114 at 3 (TINA.org opposes the
16
proposed settlement). Amicus curiae are not parties to the litigation,10 and
17
therefore amicus has been consistently precluded from . . . participating and
18
assuming control of the controversy in a totally adversarial fashion.11 The true
19
purpose of an amicus curiae should not be abused or twisted into a means for non-
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Club v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, No. CIV.A. H-07-0608, 2007 WL 3472851, at
*1 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2007) (quoting Strasser v. Doorley, 432 F.2d 567, 569 (1st Cir. 1970));
see also Acra Turf Club, LLC v. Zanzuccki, No. CIV.A. 12-2775 MAS, 2014 WL 5465870, at *5
(D.N.J. Oct. 28, 2014) (noting that an amicus are less likely to be helpful at the district court
level) (italics added).
9
Merritt v. McKenney, No. C 13-01491 JSW, 2013 WL 4552672 at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
27, 2013) (citing Miller-Wohl Co., 694 F.2d 203).
10
Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm'r of Labor & Indus. State of Mont., 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th
Cir. 1982).
11
U.S. v. State of Mich., 940 F.2d 143, 165 (6th Cir. 1991); Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S.
106, 11314 (1976) ([T]he courts should not adjudicate such rights unnecessarily, and it
may be that in fact the holders of those rights either do not wish to assert them, or will be
able to enjoy them regardless of whether the incourt litigant is successful or not.)
5

parties to circumvent the more stringent requirements of intervention and standing
in order to control the litigation.
B.
TINA and NCL Do Not Represent the Class Members Interests.
As non-parties who have suffered no actual or prospective injury, TINA and
NCL appear, unarmed with any details save those from the press and the docket,
and ask the Court to let them second-guess the favorable settlement reached
following arms-length negotiations. If TINA and NCL have their way, Class
Members who are owed money under the Settlement Agreement would not be
permitted to settle their grievances and, instead, must litigate based on two non-
10
party entities desire to move forward with litigation that presumably benefits
11
TINA and NCLs interestsnot the interests of Class Members. TINA itself has
12
acknowledged what this would mean for the Class Members:
13
[P]yramid schemes cannot be fixed. The bad parts cannot
14
be excised from the rest of the organization. The only
15
remedy for an illegal pyramid scheme is the complete
16
and irreversible destruction of the company. As a result,
17
in those cases where the company does not immediately
18
lie down and die, such accusations of wrongdoing
19
inevitably lead to a long, protracted legal battle that
20
consumes an obscene amount of money and a multitude
21
of man hours.12
22
In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court preliminarily concluded that
23
Plaintiffs are adequately represented and that a preliminary assessment of the
24
Settlement Agreement shows it to be fair, reasonable and adequate. Dkt. No. 104
25
26
27
28
schemes/.
12
https://www.truthinadvertising.org/not-your-grandmas-tupperware-mlms-vs-pyramid-
6

7 & 9.13 Objections have been filed in this case and the objectors have legal
counsel. Thus, the Court does not need non-parties who do not act in the interest
of Class Members objecting to a proposed settlement when some Class Members
have already done so. This is especially true where the proposed amici add
nothing new to the assertions already made by objectors.
C.
Appellate Rule 29 Supports Denial of the Motions.
While Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure does not
specifically apply to district courts, many district courts look to the rule for
guidance in determining whether an amicus brief should be considered.14 Rule 29
10
requires amicus curiae corporations to include a disclosure statement like that
11
required of parties by Rule 26.1. Rule 26.1 requires a statement that identifies
12
any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more
13
of its stock or states that there is no such corporation.15 In addition, Rule 29(5)(c)
14
requires an amicus curiae to state whether a person--other than the amicus curiae,
15
its members, or its counsel--contributed money that was intended to fund preparing
16
or submitting the brief and, if so, identifies each such person.16
17
TINA and NCL have failed to comply with any of the disclosure
18
requirements of Rule 29, leaving the Court unable to assess whether any financial
19

13
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Contrary to the assertions of both TINA and NCL, the fact of settlement itself does not
remove, and has not removed, the adversarial nature of the settling parties. Plaintiffs continue to
negotiate with Herbalife to allow for late filing of claims and additional clarifications to the
Settlement Agreement that provide additional benefits to the class. In addition, Plaintiffs intend
to move the Court to increase the payout percentage under section 4.4.5 of the Settlement
Agreement to maximize the settlement benefits for those class members who qualify as Business
Opportunity Claimants.
14
See Monarch Beverage Co. v. Johnson, No. 1:13-CV-01674-WTL, 2014 WL 7063019,
at *1 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 11, 2014) (Upon the rare occasion of such desire to participate as amicus
curiae on the district court level, courts look to the principles used in implementing Rule 29 of
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.); Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. U.S. E.P.A., No.
C13-1866JLR, 2015 WL 918686, at *31 n. 9 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 2, 2015); Acra Turf Club, LLC
v. Zanzuccki, No. CIV.A. 12-2775 MAS, 2014 WL 5465870, at *5 (D.N.J. Oct. 28, 2014); Am.
Humanist Ass'n v. Maryland-Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 303 F.R.D. 266, 269 (D.
Md. 2014).
15
Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
16
Fed. R. App. P. 29(5)(c)
7

incentives exist for filing their motions and, if so, what person or entity is behind
them. Lack of financial and corporate disclosures provide the Court yet another
basis for denying the motions, particularly given the widely publicized third party
hedge fund investors who have substantial economic self-interest in the success or
failure of Herbalifes business model.
III.
CONCLUSION
The Court should deny both TINAs and NCLs motion for leave file to file
objections to the Settlement Agreement shrouded in the cloak of amicus curiae
briefs.
10
DATED: April 13, 2015
11

FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS LLP
12
13

Philip D. Dracht
Scott M. Petersen
Jason W. Hardin
14
15
16

Robert A. Curtis
Justin P. Karczag
17
18
19
20
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 13th day of April, 2015, the foregoing has been
2
3
served via the CM/ECF system on counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants at the
following addresses:
A Howard Matz ahm@birdmarella.com, dh@birdmarella.com
Aaron Lee Arndt aarndt@foleybezek.com
David L Zifkin dzifkin@bsfllp.com, dmcknight@bsfllp.com,
ecolle@BSFLLP.com, Lcajigas@bsfllp.com, tsparks@bsfllp.com
Gopi K Panchapakesan gkp@birdmarella.com, kmm@birdmarella.com,
mlw@birdmarella.com
Jason W Hardin jhardin@fabianlaw.com
Jonathan Sherman jsherman@bsfllp.com
Jonathan David Schiller jschiller@bsfllp.com
Joseph F Kroetsch jkroetsch@bsfllp.com
Justin P Karczag jkarczag@foleybezek.com, cwalker@foleybezek.com,
ehuffman@foleybezek.com
Kevin D Gamarnik kgamarnik@foleybezek.com
Mark T Drooks mtd@birdmarella.com, lak@birdmarella.com
Mitchell A Kamin mak@birdmarella.com, km@birdmarella.com,
krw@birdmarella.com, lak@birdmarella.com
Philip D Dracht pdracht@fabianlaw.com, aclark@fabianlaw.com,
smcnett@fabianlaw.com
Robert Allen Curtis rcurtis@foleybezek.com,
cconnors@foleybezek.com, jkassity@foleybezek.com
Scott M Petersen spetersen@fabianlaw.com, smcnett@fabianlaw.com
Thomas Foley tfoley@foleybezek.com, aarndt@foleybezek.com,
cconnors@foleybezek.com
William S Ohlemeyer wohlemeyer@bsfllp.com
Andrea L Petray apetray@marksfinch.com, nhorn@marksfinch.com
James C Sturdevant jsturdevant@sturdevantlaw.com,
bnuss@sturdevantlaw.com, ydrevon@sturdevantlaw.com
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
April 13, 2015

483021565475, v. 2
27
28
9

Consolidated Bostick 13APR2015 Plaintiff Motions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Consolidated Bostick 13APR2015 Plaintiff Motions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Case 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-SH Document 125-1 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:3628

Philip D. Dracht (SBN 219044)

Thomas G. Foley, Jr., SBN 65812

15 DANA BOSTICK, et al.,

Case No.: 2:13-cv-02488-BRO (RZx)

Complaint filed: April 8, 2013

Case No. 2:13cv02488BRO (RZx)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOT. TO INCREASE PAYMENTS TO BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY

Case 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-SH Document 125-1 Filed 04/13/15 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:3629

Pursuant to Section 4.4.5 of the Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement

total purchases. This change, which was contemplated in the Settlement

oppose the change.

specific agreed to corporate reforms. Under the terms of the Settlement

referred to as Business Opportunity Claimants and are entitled to either a Pro

Rata or a Flat Rate cash award.

purchased at least $750 of Qualified (Pro Rata Claimant). The Settlement

Section 4.4.5(a) of the Settlement Agreement provides that [i]f the

Case No. 2:13cv02488BRO (RZx)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-SH Document 125-1 Filed 04/13/15 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:3630

increase payment to Business Opportunity Claimants receiving a Pro Rata Award

aggregate Qualified Products; or (ii) the total Net Settlement Fund.

On December 2, 2014, this Court entered an order granting preliminary

disseminated to the Class (the Preliminary Approval Order).1 Pursuant to the

Preliminary Approval Order, KCC, LLC, the Court-appointed Claims

Administrator, mailed and emailed direct notices to 1,533,339 potential class

3, 2015 (Claims Deadline).3 Despite this deadline, through negotiations with

Defendants, Plaintiffs have secured continued acceptance of otherwise properly

To date, approximately 7,238 Class Members have submitted Claim Forms.

Settlement Agreement is $5,738,761.49. Of this amount, $76,520.00 is

attributable to Flat Rate awards and $5,662,241.49 to Pro Rata awards.

administration of the settlement (approximately $600,000), attorney fees

Dkt. No. 105.

Case No. 2:13cv02488BRO (RZx)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-SH Document 125-1 Filed 04/13/15 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:3631

($5,250,000), and litigation costs ($210,000).5 That amount totals $8,940,000.

awards) is approximately 63% of the Net Settlement Fund.

percentage payout to Business Opportunity Claimants from 50% to 75% pursuant

Defendants do not to object to Plaintiffs motion. Moreover, none of the Class

Members have objected to Section 4.4.5(a) of the Settlement Agreement or the

Here, Section 4.4.5(a) of the Settlement Agreement provides for a

conditional increase in the amount a Business Opportunity Claimant may receive

Pro Rata Claimant for his or her Qualified Products.

As of April 6, 2015, the aggregate settlement payments to the Pro Rata

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-SH Document 125-1 Filed 04/13/15 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:3632

Settlement Agreement, an increase of the payment percentage to Pro Rata

While Plaintiffs continue to advocate for acceptance of late claims, it is

Based on current figures, Plaintiffs estimate that an increase of the

based on the Settlement Agreement, would otherwise go to cy pres. Increasing

payments to claimants is clearly preferable to paying those funds to cy pres.

DATED: April 13, 2015

FABIAN & CLENDENIN, P.C.

FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS LLP

/s/ Scott M. Petersen

Settlement Agreement, Sec. 4.4.5.

Thomas G. Foley, Jr.

Case No. 2:13cv02488BRO (RZx)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-SH Document 125-1 Filed 04/13/15 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:3633

April 13, 2015

/s/ Scott M. Petersen

Case No. 2:13cv02488BRO (RZx)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 2:13-cv-02488-BRO-SH Document 130-1 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:3715

Philip D. Dracht (SBN 219044)