11.

Legal

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 Group S.A. (“Artal”), to the alleged injury of the Company. The letters alleged defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed material adverse facts, all relating to similar allegations asserted in a previously disclosed federal securities litigation pending at such time. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York subsequently dismissed the securities litigation on May 11, 2016.

In response to the letters, pursuant to Virginia law, the Board of Directors created a special committee to review and evaluate the facts and circumstances surrounding the claims made in the demand letters. The special committee 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 alleged 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 sought 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. In light of the dismissal of the securities litigation, the parties have reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter.

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. On March 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging 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 deceptive acts and practices in violation of Section 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 filed a motion to dismiss on May 6, 2016. The plaintiff filed his opposition papers on June 9, 2016 and the Company filed its reply papers on June 23, 2016. 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.