14.

Commitments and Contingencies

In re Weight Watchers International, Inc. Securities Litigation

In March 2014, two substantially identical putative class action complaints alleging violation of the federal securities laws were filed by individual shareholders against the Company, certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors, and Artal Group S.A. (“Artal”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints were purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s common stock, no par value per share, between February 14, 2012 and October 30, 2013, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The complaints allege that, during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed material adverse facts. The complaints allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the class members. In June 2014, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On August 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other things, reduced the Class Period to between February 14, 2012 and February 13, 2013 and dropped all current officers and certain directors previously named as defendants. On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss on November 24, 2014 and the defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on December 23, 2014. The Company continues to believe that the suits are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.

Tracey Mead, Derivatively on Behalf of Weight Watchers International, Inc. vs. Artal Group et. al. and Weight Watchers International, Inc.

On May 29, 2014 and June 23, 2014, the Company received shareholder litigation demand letters alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment by Company officers and directors and Artal, to the alleged injury of the Company. The allegations in the letters relate to those contained in the ongoing federal securities litigation described above. In response to the letters, pursuant to Virginia law, the Board of Directors has created a special committee to review and evaluate the facts and circumstances surrounding the claims made in the demand letters. The special committee has decided to undertake its review after receiving a decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss in the federal securities litigation given the overlapping issues.

On August 11, 2015, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in New York State Court in Westchester County. The complaint alleges that certain Company directors and executive officers breached their various fiduciary duties by knowingly causing the Company to repurchase shares from Artal and from certain executive officers at artificially inflated prices in connection with a tender offer made to all shareholders. The complaint seeks an order for the defendants to disgorge all profits made from selling Company stock between March 16, 2012 and April 9, 2012, as well as an award for damages sustained by the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The parties sought to stay this suit pending a decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss in the federal securities litigation asserting similar allegations. The Court denied the stay, but at the preliminary court conference on December 17, 2015, the Court granted an adjournment and scheduled the next court conference for April 29, 2016. The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.

Raymond Roberts v. Weight Watchers International, Inc.

On January 7, 2016, an OnlinePlus member filed a putative class action complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, asserting class claims for breach of contract and violations of the New York General Business Law. On February 5, 2016, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court, Sothern District of New York. Specifically, the plaintiff is asserting that, as a result of the temporary glitches in the Company’s website and app in November and December 2015, the Company has: (1) breached its Subscription Agreement with its OnlinePlus members; and (2) engaged in misleading advertising and deceptive acts and practices in violation of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as his attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with this action. The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.

Other Litigation Matters

Due to the nature of the Company’s activities, it is also, at times, subject to pending and threatened legal actions that arise out of the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the disposition of any such matters is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Commitments

Minimum commitments under non-cancelable obligations, primarily for office and rental facilities operating leases at January 2, 2016, consist of the following:


2016	$	46,086
2017		30,650
2018		20,214
2019		15,098
2020		12,093
2021 and thereafter		95,437

Total	$	219,578

Total rent expense charged to operations under these operating leases for the fiscal years ended January 2, 2016, January 3, 2015 and December 28, 2013 was $42,133, $44,228, and $46,300, respectively.