12.	Contingencies

On April 1, 2011, a shareholder derivative complaint titled Shane Rothenberger, derivatively on behalf of Medifast, Inc., v. Bradley T. MacDonald et al. (Civil Action 2011-CV 863 [BEL]); and on April 11, 2011, a shareholder derivative complaint titled James A. Thompson, derivatively on behalf of Medifast, Inc., v. Bradley T. MacDonald et al. (Civil Action 2011-CV934 [BEL]) were filed in the U.S. District Court, District of Maryland. The similarly worded complaints allege breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. Each complaint requests an unspecified amount of damages, a Court Order directing reformation of corporate governance, restitution to the Company and payment of costs and disbursements. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. On July 19, 2011, the U.S. District Judge ordered consolidation of the two cases, appointment of co-lead counsel, and the filing of a consolidated complaint, among other matters. The consolidated action was dismissed without prejudice by joint stipulation and Order of the Court on April 15, 2013.

On March 17, 2011, a putative class action complaint titled Oren Proter et al. v. Medifast, Inc. et al. (Civil Action 2011-CV-720[BEL]), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, was filed for an unspecified amount of damages in the U.S. District Court, District of Maryland. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company’s business, operations and prospects. On March 24, 2011, a putative class action complaint titled Fred Greenberg v. Medifast, Inc., et al (Civil Action 2011-CV776 [BEL], alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, was filed for an unspecified amount of damages in the U.S. District Court, District of Maryland. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company’s business, operations and prospects. On July 19, 2011, the U.S. District Judge ordered the consolidation of the cases and appointment of co-lead counsel among other matters. The Greenberg case was dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed an Amended Complaint. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was granted by the Court as to all claims on March 28, 2013.

The Company filed a civil complaint on February 17, 2010 in the U.S. District Court (SD, Cal) against Barry Minkow and the Fraud Discovery Institute, Inc. (collectively, “Minkow”), iBusiness Reporting, and its editor William Lobdell, Tracy Coenen and Sequence, Inc. (collectively, “Coenen”), “Zee Yourself”, and Robert L. Fitzpatrick (“FitzPatrick”) for Defamation, Market Manipulation and Unfair Business Practices, alleging a scheme of market manipulation of Medifast stock for Defendants’ monetary gain, by damaging the business reputation of Medifast and its Take Shape For Life division. Bradley T. MacDonald, former Executive Chairman of Medifast and Company shareholder, joined the lawsuit individually. The lawsuit seeks $270 million in compensatory damages, punitive damages, and ancillary relief. In March 2011, the District Court granted in part and denied in part certain Anti-SLAPP Motions to Strike (i.e. motions to dismiss) previously filed by all Defendants. The Company has appealed that portion of the District Court’s ruling which dismissed its defamation claims against Minkow and Coenen in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Defendant FitzPatrick’s motion was denied as to the Company’s defamation claim, and FitzPatrick has appealed that portion of the Court’s ruling. Both appeals have been fully-briefed and oral argument was held on March 5, 2013. On May 20, 2013, the Court deferred its decision on Medifast and FitzPatrick’s appeals pending the determination of a petition for rehearing en banc in another Anti-SLAPP appeal, Tarla Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC, Case No. 11-55016, filed on April 30, 2013. That petition is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit.

In early 2010, the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee for Go Fig, Inc. et al., Debtors, filed an adversary civil proceeding in the US Bankruptcy Court (ED, Missouri) against Jason Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, and other unrelated entities seeking to recover, as to each, alleged preferential payments. Jason Pharmaceuticals sold product received by the Debtors and has previously filed a pending claim in the same bankruptcy. Medifast disputed the Trustee’s allegations. This action was by Court order placed on hold while the Trustee litigated similar issues against another party. This matter was recently settled by Jason Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for $6,500.

The Company and its subsidiaries are periodically subject to claims or charges filed by former or current employees or employment applicants alleging discrimination or harassment in violation of various federal or state regulations. The Company does not believe that any of the pending employment-related claims are material.

On July 20, 2012, Jason Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, signed a proposed consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), in response to the FTC’s investigation of certain statements in the Company’s advertising for its weight-loss programs. On September 17, 2012 the consent decree was entered and approved by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The consent decree replaces a previous consent order entered into by Jason Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the FTC in 1992. The FTC expressed concern that some of the Company’s advertising contained claims which were not compatible with current standards for substantiation. Pursuant to the consent decree, the Company agreed to modify certain advertising claims in this regard and agreed to ensure that its clinical studies meet the protocol contained in the consent agreement. The Company paid a civil penalty of $3.7 million to resolve the FTC’s concerns and avoid protracted legal proceedings. The Company accrued for the penalty in the second quarter of 2012 as part of selling, general & administration expenses.