EXHIBIT S

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 1 of 31 PageID #:1810
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTERHN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

NICK PEARSON, FRANCISCO PADILLA, | 

CECILIA LINARES, AUGUSTINA BLANCO, | 

ABL GONZALEZ, and RICHARD JENNINGS, | 

On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly | 

Situated, | Case No.: 11CV 07972 

 | 

 Plaintiffs, | 

 | 

v. | 

 | 

NBTY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and | 

REXALL SUNDOWN, INC., a Florida corporation; | 

and TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota | 

Corporation, | 

 | 

 Defendants. | 

 | 

Report of Keith A. Reutter, Ph.D., 

Regarding Settlement 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 2 of 31 PageID #:1811
2 

I. Introduction 

 1. I am a Ph.D. economist and Principal in the Washington, D.C. office of the 

Berkeley Research Group (“BRG”). BRG is an economic and financial consulting firm with 

offices in major U.S. and foreign cities. I have been associated with BRG since shortly after its 

founding in early 2010, and have been professionally employed as an economist for over 15 

years. I hold a Bachelor of Science and Master of Arts in economics from the University of 

Texas-Arlington, as well as a Doctor of Philosophy in economics from Auburn University. 

 2. My professional experience includes the analysis of financial and economic data 

as it pertains to damages in complex litigation, as well as regulatory matters. I have filed 

testimony in state and federal courts, as well as with the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. In addition to consulting work, I have taught economics and finance as an adjunct 

professor. My curriculum vitae containing a description of my education, professional 

experience as an economist, publications, and affiliations is attached as Appendix A. BRG is 

being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard hourly rate of $375. My 

compensation is in no way dependent on the outcome of this litigation. I have testified at trial or 

by deposition in the following matters in the last four years: Liliana Cardenas, et al. Plaintiffs, v. 

NBTY, Inc., and Rexall Sundown, Inc., Defendants, United States District Court Eastern District 

of California, Case No.: 2:11-CV-01615-LKK-CKD (2013); Tara Holdings v. Stewart Lawn and 

Landscape, In the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Case No. 02-C-11-156176 

(2012 – 2013); Backyard Power, Inc. v. Lawn Equipment Parts Co., In the United States District 

Court for the District of Maryland (2009). 

II. Assignment and Summary of Conclusions 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 3 of 31 PageID #:1812
3 

 3. In January of 2013, I submitted an expert report on behalf of plaintiffs regarding 

the estimation of class-wide damages in the current matter. It is my understanding that the 

parties have agreed to settle the litigation, and I have reviewed the Settlement Agreement. The 

settlement provides two benefits to members of the proposed Class, a direct monetary benefit 

and a benefit derived from the proposed injunctive relief. I have been retained by plaintiffs’ 

counsel and have been asked by the plaintiffs to provide an estimate of the minimum value of the 

monetary relief made available to members of the proposed Class, and to value the proposed 

injunctive relief created by the settlement. I estimate the value of the direct monetary relief 

being made available and the proposed injunctive relief with the understanding that branded 

(including but not limited to Osteo Bi-Flex) and private label glucosamine chondroitin products 

manufactured or sold by the Settling Defendants, many of which prominently display the 

“rebuilds cartilage” or a similar message, are subject to the proposed injunctive relief. In 

completing this assignment I, or those under my direct supervision, have reviewed Rexall 

Sundown, Inc. (“Rexall”) documents produced in discovery, declarations from Rexall 

employees, as well as court filings and data available through public sources. A list of 

documents relied upon in forming the opinions contained herein is attached as Appendix B. 

 4. Based on my review of Rexall’s documents, and other material, it is my opinion 

that, to a reasonable degree of economic certainty, the monetary relief made available to 

members of the proposed Class is, at a minimum, $14.2 million. Further, the injunctive relief 

agreed to in this settlement will likely result in savings to consumers of at least $18.5 million 

annually and savings to members of the proposed Class, who are repeat purchasers of the 

covered products, of $8.7 million per year. 

III. Background 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 4 of 31 PageID #:1813
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 5 of 31 PageID #:1814
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 6 of 31 PageID #:1815
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 7 of 31 PageID #:1816
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 8 of 31 PageID #:1817
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 9 of 31 PageID #:1818
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 10 of 31 PageID #:1819
of the est

understan

email or 

proposed

9.1 millio

have bee

the terms

defendan

to those 

resulting 

million (4

Keith A. 

August 3

 

20 Affidavi 21 Affidavi

timated 12 m

nding that at

postcard) o

d Class has t

on, or 76 pe

en exposed t

s of the settl

nts have agre

members o

minimum v

4,718,651 × 

Reutter

30, 2013 

 

it of Mark D. S

it of Michael E

million mem

t least 4,718

of the settle

the right to f

ercent of 12 

to the Class 

lement, an u

eed to pay is

f the propos

value of the 

$3 = $14.2 

 

Schey, ¶ 10. 

E. Hamer, ¶¶ 10

mbers of the p

8,651 membe

ment.21 Pe

file a claim f

million mem

notice mad

upper range 

s $27.3 milli

sed Class w

proposed se

million). 

0 – 13; Affidav

10 

proposed Cla

ers of the pr

r the terms 

for no less th

mbers of the

de only one u

of the minim

ion (9.1 mil

who received

ettlement, on

vit of Dan Ross

ass, or 9.1 m

roposed Cla

of the settl

han $3. Thu

e proposed C

undocument

mum value 

llion times $

d direct noti

n a value m

s, ¶¶ 5 and 6. 

million peopl

ss received 

lement, each

us, assuming

Class, who w

ted claim of

of the funds

$3). If the a

ice by emai

made availab

le.20 It also i

direct notice

h member o

g that each o

were estimat

f purchase, u

s that the se

analysis is lim

l or postcar

le basis, is $

is my 

e (via 

of the 

of the 

ted to 

under 

ettling 

mited 

rd the 

$14.2 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 11 of 31 PageID #:1820
Appendix A 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 12 of 31 PageID #:1821
Keith A. Reutter, Ph.D. 

Berkeley Research Group, LLC 

1919 M Street NW, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

Direct: 202.480.2645 

Cell: 571.327.4103 

kreutter@brg-expert.com 

BIO/SUMMARY 

Keith Reutter, Ph.D. is a Principal in the Berkeley Research Group’s (“BRG”) 

Washington, DC office. Dr. Reutter specializes in providing economic and statistical 

analysis and expertise in regulatory and complex litigation matters, including: antitrust 

(e.g. price fixing, market definition, attempted monopolization, allegations involving the 

Sherman Act and Hatch-Waxman Act), intellectual property (e.g. patent and trademark 

infringement, 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission) labor 

and employment (e.g. wrongful termination, discrimination), class certification 

proceedings, and commercial litigation (e.g. breach of contract, false advertising). 

Dr. Reutter has provided testimony before state and federal courts, the American 

Arbitration Association, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

Dr. Reutter’s engagements have covered a wide range of industries, including natural gas, 

oil and diluent pipelines, basic chemicals, consumer products, pharmaceuticals, dairy 

products, basic food stuffs, high-tech industries and products (e.g. computer software and 

hardware) and real estate. 

EDUCATION 

Ph.D., Economics, Auburn University, Lowder School of Business, 1997 

Fields of Concentration: Industrial Organization/Regulation, Econometrics, 

History of Economic Thought 

Dissertation: From Franchise to State Commission: Regulation of the Electric 

Utility Industry, 1907 to 1932 

M.A., Economics, the University of Texas-Arlington, 1992 

B.S., Economics, the University of Texas-Arlington, 1988 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 13 of 31 PageID #:1822
2 

EXPERT RETENTIONS 

Lorean Barrera, et al., Plaintiffs v. Pharmavite, LLC, Defendants, United States District 

Court for the Central District of California, Case No.: CV-11-4153 (AGrx). 

Expert report regarding the estimation of damages. 

Rebecca Bohn, et al., Plaintiffs v. Pharmavite, LLC, Defendants, United States District 

Court for the Central District of California, Case No.: 2:11-cv-10430-GHK-AGR 

(2013). Expert report regarding the estimation of damages and deposition 

testimony. 

Luis Lerma, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Schiff Nutrition International and Schiff Nutrition Group, 

Defendants, United States District Court Southern District of California, Case 

No.: 11-CV-1056-JAH(MDD) (2013). Expert report regarding the estimation of 

damages. 

Liliana Cardenas, et al. Plaintiffs, v. NBTY, Inc., and Rexall Sundown, Inc., Defendants,

United States District Court Eastern District of California, Case No.: 2:11-CV01615-LKK-CKD (2013). Expert report and deposition testimony regarding the 

estimation of damages.

Tara Holdings v. Stewart Lawn and Landscape, In the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel 

County, Maryland, Case No. 02-C-11-156176 (2012 - 2013). Expert report 

regarding damages. Deposition and trial testimony. 

Waypoint Aviation Services, Inc. et al. v. Lycoming Engines, et al. In the Circuit Court of 

Cook County, Illinois, No. 06 CH 22950 (2012). Expert report regarding the 

estimation of damages. 

Backyard Power, Inc. v. Lawn Equipment Parts Co., In the United States District Court 

for the District of Maryland (2007 - 2009). Expert report regarding commercial 

damages. Deposition. 

Settlement Hearing Regarding Crompton’s EPDM Damages, before independent 

arbitrator (2005). Testimony before independent arbitrator regarding antitrust 

damages. 

The Townsend Group, Inc. v. the National Lumberman’s Publishing Corp et al., before 

the American Arbitration Association (2002). Expert report regarding damages. 

inData Corporation v. Verdict Systems et al., In the Superior Court of the State of 

Arizona (2001) Case No. CV 1999-93390. Expert report regarding damages. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 14 of 31 PageID #:1823
3 

SELECTED CONSULTING

In the Matter of Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing Same, Before 

the U.S. International Trade Commission, Investigation No. 337-TA-837 (2012 – 

2013).

In the Matter of Certain Video Displays and Products and Containing Same, Before the 

U.S. International Trade Commission, Investigation No. 337-TA-828 (2012).

DTE/MichCon analysis regarding ANR Pipeline and Storage facilities (2012 – 2013). 

In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and 

products Containing Same, Before the U.S. International Trade Commission, 

Investigation No. 337-TA-605 (Bond Forfeiture Proceeding) (2012). 

In the Matter of Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash Memory 

Devices and Products Containing the Same, Before the U.S. International Trade 

Commission, Investigation No. 337-TA-803 (2012). 

In the Matter of Enbridge Southern Lights Tolls, before the National Energy Board, RH1-2011, Canada (2011). 

In re Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litigation, In the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Tennessee, at Greeneville (2007 – 2009). 

In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litigation, In the United 

States District Court for the District of Connecticut (2004 – 2009).

In re Wellbutrin Antitrust Litigation, In the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania (2006 – 2008).

Faye Vassilates et al., v. Del Monte et al., Superior Court State of California County of 

Alameda (2007 – 2008).

Columbus Drywall et al., v Masco Corporation et al., In the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (2006 – 2007). 

In re Carbon Black Antitrust Litigation, In the United States District Court for the 

District of Massachusetts (2004 – 2006). 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 15 of 31 PageID #:1824
4 

SELECTED TESTIMONY BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Comments of C. Danner, H. Kahwaty, K. Reutter and C. Tyler re the NOI, “Analysis of 

Horizontal Market Power in Transactions Under the Federal Power Act,” Docket 

No. RM11-14-000. May 2011. 

Comments of K. Reutter re the NOI, “Analysis of Horizontal Market Power in 

Transactions Under the Federal Power Act,” Docket No. RM11-14-000. May 

2011. 

Market Power Analysis re Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC (update), FERC 

 Docket No. CP04-379-002, February 2009. 

Market Power Analysis re Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, FERC 

 Docket No. PR09-10-000, December 2008. 

Market Power Analysis re Southern Pines Energy Center (update), FERC 

 Docket No. CP02-229-004, May 2008. 

Market Power Analysis re Washington 10 Storage Corporation, FERC 

 Docket No. PR08-26-000, May 2008. 

Market Power Analysis (update) re Caledonia Natural Gas Storage Facility, FERC 

 Docket No. CP08-52-000, January 2008. 

Market Power Analysis re Leaf River Energy Center LLC, FERC 

 Docket No. CP08-8-000, October 2007. 

Market Power Analysis re Tres Palacios Storage LLC, FERC 

 Docket No. CP07-90-000, February 2007. 

PUBLICATIONS/PRESENTATIONS 

“Recent Changes in Statute and Case Law: Effects on the Value of Intellectual Property 

Assets,” with W.O. Kerr, prepared for and presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the 

Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration. 

“The First Step in Restructuring the US Electric Industry,” with A. Barnett and H. 

Thompson, Energy Economics, Vol. 27, Issue 2, pp. 225-235 (Spring 2005). 

“Electricity Substitution: Some local industrial evidence,” with A. Barnett and H. 

Thompson, Energy Economics, Vol. 20, Issue 4, pp. 411-419 (Fall 1998). 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 16 of 31 PageID #:1825
5 

“Power Pools vs. Bilateral Markets: A Survey,” Auburn Policy Research Center 

monograph, summer 1996. 

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS 

Energy Bar Association 

American Economic Association 

ACADEMIC AND OTHER POSITIONS 

Reutter Economics, LLC 

 Principal: 2009 – 2012 

Nathan Associates Inc. 

 Principal Economist: 2007 – 2009 

 Managing/Senior Economist: 2001 – 2007 

InteCap/Micronomics, Inc. 

 Senior Economist/Director: 1999 – 2001 

The University of Southern Indiana 

Assistant Professor of Economics and Finance (Adjunct): 1998 

 

American General Finance 

 Senior Analyst – Risk Analysis: 1998 – 1999 

Capital Economics 

 Economist: 1997 

Auburn Policy Research Center 

 Research associate: 1993 – 1997 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 17 of 31 PageID #:1826
Appendix B 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 18 of 31 PageID #:1827
Appendix B

Material Relied Upon by Keith A. Reutter, Ph.D.

Bates Numbered Documents

Exhibit 1 Cramer-Krasselt Survey (REX0004055-4179)

Exhibit 2 ACNielsen Study (REX0002483-2590)

Exhibit 3 MillwardBrown Study (REX0002314-2356)

Exhibit 4 Food and Drug Pricing, Osteo Bi-Flex (Pricing Suggested by ACNielsen Study)

Exhibit 5 Mass Merchandiser Pricing, Osteo Bi-Flex (Pricing Suggested by ACNielsen 

Study)

Exhibit 6 Expected Changes in Demand for Osteo Bi-Flex, Given ACNielsen Study

Court Documents1

Nick Pearson, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NBTY, Inc., et al., Defendants, Second Amended Class Action 

Complaint, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern 

Division, Case No. 11 CV 07972 [D.E. 64] (Apr. 22, 2013)

Master Exhibit A Affidavit of Mark D. Schey, dated August 30, 2013

Master Exhibit B Affidavit of Michael E. Hamer, dated August 30, 2013

Master Exhibit C Affidavit of Dan Ross, dated August 14, 2013

Master Exhibit J Declaration of Michael Collins, dated August 30, 2013

Master Exhibit Z Declaration of Jorge Granja, dated August 29, 2013

Websites

http://www.c-k.com/#/offices/

http://www.glucosaminesettlement.com/claim/

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en.html

 1 To reduce the size of this filing, attachments to Dr. Reutter’s Report that are also on the 

Pearson docket or on the Parties’ Master Exhibit list are not attached as exhibits hereto.

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 19 of 31 PageID #:1828
Exhibit 1 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 20 of 31 PageID #:1829
Exhibit 1 redacted in its entirety.

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 21 of 31 PageID #:1830
Exhibit 2 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 22 of 31 PageID #:1831
Exhibit 2 redacted in its entirety.

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 23 of 31 PageID #:1832
Exhibit 3 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 24 of 31 PageID #:1833
Exhibit 3 redacted in its entirety.

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 25 of 31 PageID #:1834
Exhibit 4 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 26 of 31 PageID #:1835
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 27 of 31 PageID #:1836
Exhibit 5 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 28 of 31 PageID #:1837
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 29 of 31 PageID #:1838
Exhibit 6 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 30 of 31 PageID #:1839
Exhibit 6: Expected Changes in Demand for Osteo Bi-Flex, Given ACNielsen 

Study 

Price

Quantity 

D1

D0

S0

E0

E1

P0

P1

Q0 Q1

Decrease in 

demand 

Increase in 

demand 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-20 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 31 of 31 PageID #:1840