Proxy voting options

Your vote is important!

All shareholders are cordially invited to attend the Annual Meeting in person. However, in order to assure your representation at the Annual Meeting, you are urged to vote promptly. You may vote your shares via a toll-free telephone number or over the Internet or by completing, signing and mailing a proxy card or voting instruction form. Please follow the instructions on the proxy card or voting instruction form.

Proxies submitted by mail, the Internet or telephone must be received by 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on April 22, 2015.

Vote by Internet

www.envisionreports.com/HLF

24 hours a day / 7 days a week

Instructions:

Vote by telephone

1.800.652.VOTE (8683) via touch tone phone

toll-free 24 hours a day / 7 days a week

Instructions:

Place, time and date of meeting.    This Proxy Statement is being furnished to the Company’s shareholders in connection with the solicitation of proxies on behalf of our Board of Directors for use at the Meeting to be held on Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., Pacific Daylight Time, and at any subsequent adjournment(s) or postponement(s) thereof, for the purposes set forth herein and in the accompanying Notice of Annual General Meeting of Shareholders. The Meeting will be held at 800 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 406, Los Angeles, California, 90015. Our telephone number is (213) 745-0500.

Record date and voting securities.    Only shareholders of record at the close of business on February 27, 2015 or the Record Date, or duly authorized proxy holders of such shareholders of record, are entitled to notice of and to vote at the Meeting. The Company has one series of Common Shares outstanding. As of the Record Date              Common Shares were issued and outstanding and held of record by              registered holders.

Voting.    Each shareholder is entitled to one vote for each Common Share held on the Record Date on all matters submitted for consideration at the Meeting. A quorum, representing the holders of not less than a majority of the issued and outstanding Common Shares entitled to vote at the Meeting, must be present in person or by proxy at the Meeting for the transaction of business. Common Shares that reflect abstentions are treated as Common Shares that are present and entitled to vote for the purposes of establishing a quorum and for purposes of determining the outcome of any matter submitted to the shareholders for a vote. However, abstentions do not constitute a vote “for” or “against” any matter and thus will be disregarded in the calculation of a plurality.

“Broker non-votes” are Common Shares held in “street name” through a broker or other nominee over which the broker or nominee lacks discretionary power to vote and for which the broker or nominee has not received specific voting instructions. Thus, if you do not give your broker or nominee specific instructions, your Common Shares may not be voted on certain matters. Common Shares that reflect “broker non-votes” are treated as Common Shares that are present and entitled to vote for the purposes of

establishing a quorum. However, for the purposes of determining the outcome of any matter as to which the broker or nominee has indicated on the proxy that it does not have discretionary authority to vote, those Common Shares will be treated as not present and not entitled to vote with respect to that matter, even though those Common Shares are considered present and entitled to vote for the purposes of establishing a quorum and may be entitled to vote on other matters.

If you are a beneficial shareholder and your broker or nominee holds your Common Shares in its name, the broker or nominee is permitted to vote your Common Shares on the ratification of the appointment of independent registered public accountants, even if the broker or nominee does not receive voting instructions from you.

Directors are elected by a plurality, and the four nominees who receive the most votes will be elected. Abstentions and “broker non-votes” will not affect the outcome of the election. In respect of proposals 2, 3 and 5, to be approved, any such proposal must receive the affirmative vote of a majority of the Common Shares present or represented by proxy and entitled to vote on such matter. In respect of the fourth proposal, which involves changes to the Company’s Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association and is therefore required, under the Companies Law (2013 Revision) of the Cayman Islands, to be passed as a special resolution, such proposal must receive the affirmative vote of not less than 66.67% of the Common Shares present or represented by proxy and entitled to vote in order to be approved. In respect of determining the outcome of the proposals other than the election of directors, abstentions have the effect of a negative vote. “Broker non-votes” will not affect the outcome of any such proposals.

The results of the advisory vote on the Company’s executive compensation are not binding on the Board of Directors.

Majority vote policy.    Pursuant to the majority voting policy set forth in our Principles of Corporate Governance, any current member of our Board of Directors that is a nominee in an uncontested election who does not receive

a majority of votes cast “for” his or her election is required to tender his or her resignation promptly following the failure to receive the required vote. The nominating and corporate governance committee of the Board is then required to make a recommendation to the Board as to whether the Board should accept the resignation, and the Board is required to decide whether to accept the resignation and to disclose its decision-making process. As discussed in greater detail under Part 3 — “Proposal 4: Approval of an amendment the company’s amended and restated memorandum and articles of association to provide for majority voting in uncontested director elections,” in the event that Proposal 4 is approved by our shareholders, this majority voting policy will be removed from our Principles of Corporate Governance.

Revocability of proxies.    Any proxy given pursuant to this solicitation may be revoked by the person giving it at any time before its use by either (a) delivering to the Corporate Secretary of the Company a written notice of revocation or a duly executed proxy bearing a later date, (b) granting a subsequent proxy through the Internet or telephone or (c) by attending the Meeting and voting in person. However, please note that if you would like to vote at the Meeting and you are not the shareholder of record, you must request, complete and deliver a proxy from your broker or other nominee.

Proxy solicitation.    The Company bears the expense of printing and mailing proxy materials. Proxies may be solicited by certain of our directors, officers, and regular employees, without additional compensation, in person, by telephone, facsimile, or electronic mail. We will, upon request, reimburse brokerage firms and others for their reasonable expenses in forwarding solicitation material to the beneficial owners of Common Shares.

Meeting attendance.    Only shareholders of record as of February 27, 2015, authorized proxy holders of such shareholders, and invited guests of the Board may attend the Meeting.

If you are a shareholder of record, in order to be admitted to the Meeting, you will need to produce picture identification (such as a valid driver’s license or passport) as well as copy of a form of proxy card or voting instruction form or a Notice showing your name and address. If you are an authorized proxy holder of a shareholder of record, in order to attend the Meeting, you will need both an admission ticket and picture identification (such as a valid driver’s license or passport). To obtain an admission ticket to the Meeting, please send

your written request to Assistant Corporate Secretary, Herbalife International of America, Inc., 800 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 406, Los Angeles, California 90015. Your request must be received on or before April 13, 2015 and include a copy of a form of proxy card or voting instruction form confirming your appointment as a proxy holder. In your request, please include the address where your admission ticket should be mailed, and any special assistance needs. The Board requests that persons attending the Meeting observe a professional business dress code.

Meaning of shareholder of record.    You are a shareholder of record only if your name is recorded on the Company’s register of members. If your name is not recorded on the Company’s register of members, any shares you hold in the Company are held beneficially. In this case you may still be entitled to direct the holder of your shares as to who should be appointed as proxy in respect of those shares and/or as to how to vote those shares on your behalf. If your shares are held beneficially and you wish to attend and vote at the Meeting in person, you will need to attend as a proxy holder of the shareholder of record.

Shareholders who have purchased their shares on an exchange may hold those shares through a depository, in which case they will be beneficial shareholders and will not be shareholders of record. If you hold your shares in “street name” you will not be a shareholder of record.

If you wish to enquire as to whether or not you are a shareholder of record, please contact our Assistant Corporate Secretary at c/o Herbalife International of America, Inc., 800 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 406, Los Angeles, California 90015.

Additional information.    This Proxy Statement contains summaries of certain documents, but you are urged to read the documents themselves for the complete information. The summaries are qualified in their entirety by reference to the complete text of the document. In the event that any of the terms, conditions or other provisions of any such document is inconsistent with or contrary to the description or terms in this Proxy Statement, such document will control. Each of these documents, as well as those documents referenced in this Proxy Statement as being available in print upon request, are available upon request to the Company by following the procedures described under Part 7 —“Annual report, financial and additional information.”

Our Board of Directors has affirmatively determined that each of Messrs. Barnes, Bermingham, Carmona, Christodoro, Cozza, Dunn, Gary, Lynn and Nelson and Mme. Otero is or was independent under section 303A.02 of the New York Stock Exchange, or the NYSE, Listed Company Manual and the Company’s Categorical Standards of Independence, which are included as part of our Principles of Corporate Governance that are available on our website at www.herbalife.com by following the links through “Investor Relations” to “Corporate Governance.” The NYSE’s independence guidelines and the Company’s Categorical Standards include a series of objective tests, such as the person is not an employee of the Company and has not engaged in various types of business dealings involving the Company that would prevent the person from being an independent director.

The Board of Directors has affirmatively determined that none of the foregoing directors had any relationship with the Company that would compromise his or her independence. Mr. Carmona received $100,000 in speaking fees in 2014 as disclosed in the “Director Compensation Table” below. Additionally, Messrs. Christodoro, Cozza, Gary, Lynn and Nelson are affiliated with the Icahn Parties (as defined in Part 3—“Proposal 1: the election of directors”), which beneficially own approximately 17,000,000 Common Shares. However, the Board of Directors affirmatively determined that such relationships did not compromise the independent judgment or the ability to act independent of the Company’s management of any of Messrs. Carmona, Christodoro, Cozza, Gary, Lynn or Nelson.

The Board of Directors met 18 times during 2014. Each director is expected to dedicate sufficient time, energy and attention to ensure the diligent performance of his or her duties, including attending meetings of the shareholders of the Company, the Board of Directors and committees of which he or she is a member.

It is the policy of the Board of Directors to hold four regularly scheduled meetings, each of which includes an

executive session of non-management directors without the presence of management as well as a session of only the independent directors. Additional meetings of the Board of Directors, executive sessions of non-management directors and sessions of independent directors may be held from time to time as required or determined to be necessary.

Currently Mr. Johnson serves as our Chairman and CEO. The Board has determined that a board leadership structure featuring a single leader as Chairman and CEO combined with a Lead Director best serves the interests of the Company and its shareholders. Combining the roles of Chairman and CEO makes clear that the individual serving in these roles has primary responsibility for managing the Company’s business, under the oversight and review of the Board. Under this structure, the Chairman and CEO chairs Board meetings, where the Board discusses strategic and business issues. The Board believes that this approach is appropriate because the CEO is the individual with primary responsibility for implementing the

Company’s strategy, directing the work of other executive officers and leading implementation of the Company’s strategic plans as approved by the Board. This structure results in a single leader being directly accountable to the Board and, through the Board, to shareholders, and enables the CEO to act as the key link between the Board and other members of management.

In addition, the Board believes this structure is appropriate for the Company as the CEO is the person most knowledgeable about the Company and its business and is therefore the individual best able to provide guidance for productive Board meetings. The unique

nature of the Company’s direct selling business model requires that the Chairman and CEO forge a close relationship with, and obtain and maintain the trust of, the Company’s independent members.

Because the Board also believes that strong, independent Board leadership is a critical aspect of effective corporate governance, the Board has established the position of Lead Director. The Lead Director is an independent director elected for a two year term by the independent directors. The Lead Director chairs the Board meetings during all executive sessions and when the Chairman and CEO is unable to participate in Board meetings, and is a contact point for major shareholders and third parties who may desire to contact the Board independently of the Chairman and CEO. Mr. Levitt served as Lead Director from February 24, 2013 until the end of his Board service at the Company’s 2014 annual general meeting of shareholders. Mr. Dunn was elected as Lead Director by the independent directors effective April 24, 2014. The responsibilities of the Lead Director include:

The Board periodically reviews the structure of Board and Company leadership as part of the succession planning process.

The full Board of Directors has the ultimate responsibility for risk oversight regarding the Company. The Board oversees a Company-wide approach to risk management, designed to enhance shareholder value and to support the achievement of strategic objectives and to improve long-term organizational performance. The first aspect of the Board’s approach to risk management is to determine the appropriate level of risk for the Company generally, followed by an assessment of the specific risks the Company faces and the steps management is taking to manage those risks. The full Board’s involvement in setting the Company’s business strategy facilitates those assessments, culminating in the development of a strategic plan that reflects the Board’s and management’s consensus as to appropriate levels of risk as to specific aspects of the Company’s business and the appropriate measures to manage those risks. Additionally, the full Board of Directors participates in a periodic enterprise risk management assessment during its quarterly meetings. In this process, risk is assessed throughout the business, focusing on risks arising out of various aspects of the Company’s strategic plan and its implementation, including financial, legal/compliance, operational/strategic and compensation risks. The Board also assesses its role in

risk oversight throughout our business. In addition to the discussion of risk with the full Board at least once a year, the independent directors discuss risk management during executive sessions without management present with the Lead Director presiding.

While the full Board of Directors has the ultimate oversight responsibility for the risk management process, various Board committees also have responsibility for risk management in certain areas. In particular, the audit committee focuses on financial risk, including internal controls, and assesses the Company’s risk profile with the Company’s internal auditors. The internal controls risk profile drives the internal audit plan for the coming year. The audit committee also handles violations of the Company’s Code of Ethics and related corporate policies. Finally, the compensation committee periodically reviews compensation practices and policies to confirm that they do not encourage excessive risk taking. Management regularly reports on each such risk to the relevant committee or the full Board, as appropriate, and additional review or reporting on enterprise risks is conducted as needed or as requested by the Board or the relevant committee.

Effective April 24, 2014, each non-management director receives (i) $85,000 per year for services as a director (an increase from $70,000 received from January 1, 2014, through April 23, 2014) and $5,000 for each Board committee on which the director served, an additional $20,000 per year for the Lead Director, an additional $15,000 per year for the chair of the audit committee, an additional $10,000 per year for the chair of the compensation committee and an additional $10,000 per year for the chair of the nominating and corporate governance committee, (ii) $1,500 for each Board meeting

attended by the director in person or $1,000 per Board meeting attended telephonically, (iii) $3,000 for each audit committee meeting attended either in person or telephonically (an increase from $2,500 received from January 1, 2014 through April 23, 2014), and (iv) $2,000 for each compensation committee and for each nominating and corporate governance committee meeting attended either in person or telephonically (an increase from $1,500 received from January 1, 2014 through April 23, 2014). Cash fees with respect to Board or committee membership or service as the Lead Director or a

committee chair are paid ratably assuming twelve consecutive months of service from the date the particular membership or service commences. Cash fees for attending Board or committee meetings are paid in the month following the meeting date. Non-management directors also receive an annual equity grant pursuant to the Company’s Amended and Restated Non-Management Directors Compensation Plan, which is part of the Herbalife Ltd. 2014 Stock Incentive Plan, in the form of restricted stock units, or RSU’s, with a grant date fair value (as determined for financial reporting purposes) of $120,000 (rounded down to the nearest whole unit that

vest on April 15, 2015). The Lead Director also receives an Equity grant in the form of restricted stock units RSUs with a grant date fair value (as determined for financial reporting purposes) of $250,000 (rounded down to the nearest whole unit) in respect of his or her two-year term as Lead Director. The RSU award granted to the Lead Director vests on continuation of service as Lead Director in ratable amounts over each quarter over the life of the award. Our Lead Director typically serves for a two-year term and the appointment is reconsidered biannually concurrently with our annual general meeting of shareholders.

Shareholders and other parties interested in communicating directly with the Board of Directors, non-management directors as a group or individual directors, including Jeffrey T. Dunn in his capacity as the Lead Director, may do so by writing to Herbalife Ltd., c/o Assistant Corporate Secretary, 800 W. Olympic Blvd, Suite 406, Los Angeles, CA 90015, or by email at corpsec@herbalife.com, indicating to whose attention the communication should be directed. Under a process approved by the Board of Directors for handling communications received by the Company and addressed to non-management directors, the Corporate Secretary of the Company reviews all such correspondence and forwards to members of the audit committee a summary

and/or copies of any such correspondence that, in the opinion of the Corporate Secretary, deal with the functions of the Board of Directors or committees thereof, or that he otherwise determines requires their attention. Directors may at any time review a log of all communications received by the Company and addressed to members of the Board of Directors and request copies of any such correspondence. Concern relating to accounting, internal controls or auditing matters are immediately brought to the attention of the Company’s internal audit department and handled in accordance with procedures established by the audit committee with respect to such matters.

Our Board of Directors has a standing audit committee, nominating and corporate governance committee, and compensation committee.

Audit committee

From January 1, 2014 until April 29, 2014, the audit committee consisted of Messrs. Barnes, Bermingham and Levitt. From April 29, 2014 until June 30, 2014, the audit committee consisted of Messrs. Barnes, Bermingham, Carmona and Nelson. From June 30, 2014 until July 24, 2014, the audit committee consisted of Messrs. Barnes, Bermingham, and Nelson. From July 24, 2014 the audit committee consisted of Messrs. Barnes, Bermingham, Dunn and Nelson. Since February 26, 2015, the audit committee has consisted of Messrs. Bermingham, Dunn and Nelson. Each director who served on the audit committee in 2014 is or was independent as discussed above under “—Director Independence.” As required by Rule 303A.07 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual, the Board of Directors has affirmatively determined that each of Messrs. Barnes, Bermingham, Dunn and Nelson is or was financially literate, and that Mr. Bermingham is an “audit committee financial expert,” as defined in Item 407(d)(5) of Regulation S-K. Mr. Barnes served on the audit committee of four public companies while serving as a member of the Company’s audit committee. As required by Rule 303A.07 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual, the Board of Directors affirmatively determined that Mr. Barnes’ simultaneous services on the audit committees of more than three public companies would not impair his ability to effectively serve on the Company’s audit committee.

The principal duties of the audit committee are as follows:

Our Board of Directors has adopted a written charter for the audit committee which is available on the Company’s website at www.herbalife.com by following the links through “Investor Relations” to “Corporate Governance,” and in print to any shareholder who requests it as set forth under Part 7 —“Annual report, financial and additional information.” In 2014, the audit committee met 10 times.

Nominating and corporate governance committee

From January 1, 2014 until April 29, 2014, the nominating and corporate governance committee consisted of Mme. Nicholas and Messrs. Barnes and Dunn. From April 29, 2014 until July 24, 2014, the nominating and corporate governance committee consisted of Messrs. Barnes, Christodoro and Dunn. From July 24, 2014 the nominating and corporate governance committee consisted of Messrs. Barnes, Carmona, Christodoro and Lynn. Since February 26, 2015, the nominating and corporate governance committee has consisted of Messrs. Carmona, Christodoro and Lynn.

Each director who served on the nominating and corporate governance committee in 2014 is or was independent as discussed above under “— Director Independence.” The principal duties of the nominating and corporate governance committee are as follows:

In identifying candidates to serve on the Board, the nominating and corporate governance committee first determines the evolving needs of the Board taking into account such factors as it deems appropriate, including, among others, the current composition of the Board of Directors, the range of talents, experiences and skills that would best complement those already represented on the Board of Directors, the balance of management and independent directors and the need for financial or other specialized expertise, as discussed in greater detail below under Part 3 — “Proposal 1: The Election of Directors —Director Qualifications.” Applying these criteria, the nominating and corporate governance committee considers candidates for director suggested by its members and other directors, as well as by management and shareholders. The nominating and corporate governance committee also retains a third-party executive search firm on an ad-hoc basis to identify and review candidates upon request of the committee from time to time.

If the nominating and corporate governance committee decides, on the basis of its preliminary review, to proceed with further consideration, the committee members, as well as other directors as appropriate, interview the nominee. After completing this evaluation and interview, the nominating and corporate governance committee makes a recommendation to the full Board of Directors, which makes the final determination whether to nominate the candidate after considering the nominating and corporate governance committee’s report.

A shareholder who wishes to recommend a prospective nominee for the Board of Directors pursuant to the provisions of the Company’s Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association, or the Memorandum and Articles of Association, should notify the Corporate Secretary in writing with the appropriate supporting materials, as more fully described under Part 7 — “Shareholder nominations.”

The Board of Directors has adopted a written charter for the nominating and corporate governance committee, which is available on the Company’s website at

www.herbalife.com by following the links through “Investor Relations” to “Corporate Governance” or in print to any shareholder who requests it as set forth under Part 7 — “Annual report, financial and additional information.” In 2014, the nominating and corporate governance committee met five times.

Compensation committee

From January 1, 2014 through April 29, 2014, the compensation committee consisted of Mme. Black and Messrs. Bermingham and Dunn. From April 29, 2014 to July 24, 2014, the compensation committee consisted of Messrs. Bermingham, Christodoro and Mme. Otero. Since July 24, 2014, the compensation committee has consisted of Messrs. Bermingham, Christodoro and Gary and Mme. Otero. Each director who served on the compensation committee in 2014 is independent as discussed above under “— Director Independence.” The principal duties of the compensation committee are as follows:

Among other duties, the compensation committee is responsible for making the initial risk assessment of the Company’s compensation programs and determining whether those programs require modification to remain consistent with the Board’s determinations as to the levels of risk that are appropriate for the Company. In its assessment, the compensation committee reviewed the Company’s compensation structure and noted numerous ways in which risk is potentially mitigated by practices and policies that include: the balanced mix between short- and long-term incentives; the use of multiple performance measures for the CEO’s annual incentive awards; strong internal controls; the use of stock ownership guidelines; and the existence of an anti-hedging policy. In light of its analysis, the committee believes that the architecture of the Company’s compensation programs provide various safeguards to protect against undue risk-taking.

Our Board of Directors has adopted a written charter for the compensation committee which is available on the Company’s website at www.herbalife.com by following the links through “Investor Relations” to “Corporate

Governance” or in print to any shareholder who requests it as set forth under Part 7 — “Annual report, financial and additional information.” In 2014, the compensation committee met five times.

During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, Mmes. Black and Otero and Messrs. Bermingham, Christodoro, Gary and Dunn served on the compensation committee of the Board of Directors. During the fiscal year ended

December 31, 2014, there were no relationships or transactions between the Company and any member of the compensation committee requiring disclosure hereunder.

Generally

Our Memorandum and Articles of Association presently provide for not less than one nor more than fifteen directors. The Board of Directors has, by resolution, presently fixed the number of directors at thirteen. The Memorandum and Articles of Association divide the Board of Directors into three classes. The current terms of office of Class II directors end at the Meeting. The terms of Class I and Class III directors end at the 2016 annual general meeting. Effective in 2016, and pursuant to an amendment to the Memorandum and Articles of Association approved at the 2013 annual general meeting, all Board members will serve one-year terms and these three classes will be consolidated into a single class. Currently the Board consists of four directors in Class I, four in Class II and four in Class III. There is currently a vacancy in Class III related to Mr. Barnes retiring from the Board on February 26, 2015. The Board of Directors has begun a search for a qualified candidate to fill the vacancy.

The Board has nominated each of Pedro Cardoso, Jonathan Christodoro, Keith Cozza and James L. Nelson for election as Class II directors to serve one year terms expiring at the 2016 annual general meeting. The nominations of Messrs. Christodoro, Cozza and Nelson were made pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Support Agreement, or the Support Agreement, dated March 23, 2014, by and between the Company and Carl C. Icahn, Icahn Partners Master Fund LP, Icahn Offshore LP, Icahn Partners LP, Icahn Onshore LP, Beckton Corp., Hopper Investments LLC, Barberry Corp., High River Limited Partnership, Icahn Capital LP, IPH GP LLC, Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P. and Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc., or collectively, the Icahn Parties. A copy of the Support Agreement was filed by the Company on Form 8-K on March 24, 2014. In consideration of these nominations, the Icahn Parties have agreed to vote their Common Shares in favor of the Board’s nominees for director at the Meeting and thereafter for so long as any Icahn Party designee is a member of the Board. The Icahn Parties beneficially own approximately 17,000,000 of our Common Shares. The Support Agreement also includes standstill and voting provisions applicable to the Icahn Parties’ ownership of Company Common Shares. The Company did not receive any shareholder nominations for director.

The persons named as proxies on the accompanying proxy card intend to vote the Common Shares as to which they are granted authority to vote for the election of the nominees listed above. The form of proxy card does not permit shareholders to vote for a greater number of nominees than four. Although the Board of Directors does not know of any reason why any nominee will be unavailable for election, in the event any nominee should be unavailable at the time of the Meeting, the proxies may be voted for a substitute nominee as selected by the Board of Directors.

Director qualifications

The Board believes that the Board, as a whole, should possess a combination of skills, professional experience and diversity of backgrounds necessary to oversee the Company’s business. In addition, the Board believes that there are certain attributes that every director should possess, as reflected in the Board’s membership criteria discussed below. Accordingly, the Board and the nominating and corporate governance committee consider the qualifications of directors and director candidates individually and in the broader context of the Board’s overall composition and the Company’s current and future needs.

The nominating and corporate governance committee is responsible for developing and recommending Board membership criteria to the Board for approval. The criteria, which are set forth in the Company’s Principles of Corporate Governance, are available on the Company’s website, www.herbalife.com, by following the links through “Investor Relations” to “Corporate Governance,” and include business experience and skills, independence, judgment, integrity, the ability to commit sufficient time and attention to Board activities and the absence of potential conflicts with the Company’s interests. In addition, the nominating and corporate governance committee periodically evaluates the composition of the Board to assess the skills and experience that are currently represented on the Board, as well as the skills and experience that the Board will find valuable in the future, given the Company’s current situation and strategic plans. The nominating and corporate governance committee seeks a variety of occupational, educational and personal

backgrounds on the Board in order to obtain a range of viewpoints and perspectives and to enhance the diversity of the Board in such areas as professional experience, geography, race, gender, ethnicity and age. While the nominating and corporate governance committee does not have a formal policy with respect to diversity, the nominating and corporate governance committee believes that it is essential that Board members represent diverse viewpoints. This periodic assessment enables the Board to update the skills and experience it seeks in the Board as a whole, and in individual directors, as the Company’s needs evolve and change over time and to assess effectiveness of efforts at pursuing diversity. In identifying director candidates from time to time, the nominating and corporate governance committee may establish specific skills and experience that it believes the Company should seek in order to constitute a balanced and effective Board.

In evaluating director candidates, and considering incumbent directors for renomination to the Board, the nominating and corporate governance committee considers a variety of factors. These include each nominee’s independence, financial literacy, personal and professional accomplishments and experience, each in light of the composition of the Board as a whole and the needs of the Company in general, and for incumbent directors, past performance on the Board. The nominating and corporate governance committee also considers the terms of the support agreement. The process undertaken by the nominating and corporate governance committee in recommending qualified director candidates is described above under Part 2 — “Committees of the board — Nominating and corporate governance committee.”

		Pedro Cardoso Age 48   Class II Director since 2009

Mr. Cardoso has been an independent Herbalife Member for 23 years and a member of the Company’s Chairman’s Club since 2005. Mr. Cardoso has built a successful organization of Herbalife independent Members in several countries. He has been active in training Herbalife Members around the world, and is a member of various strategy and planning groups for Herbalife. He is also an active volunteer for the Herbalife Family Foundation. Prior to joining Herbalife, Mr. Cardoso served as the Transportation Supervisor of the Avon Company from 1990 to 1992. He received his degree in applied mathematics from the Autonomous University of Lisbon.

Mr. Cardoso’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his 23 years of experience as an Herbalife Member, which brings a first-hand understanding of the function and specific needs of our independent Members, the ultimate drivers of our business, to the Board. His tenure as a Member also provides valuable insight into the Company’s growth and development over the 23-year period.

Jonathan Christodoro has served as a Managing Director of Icahn Capital LP, the entity through which Carl C. Icahn manages investment funds, since July 2012. Mr. Christodoro is responsible for identifying, analyzing and monitoring investment opportunities and portfolio companies for Icahn Capital. Prior to joining Icahn Capital, from 2007 to 2012, Mr. Christodoro served in various investment and research roles at P2 Capital Partners, LLC. Mr. Christodoro has been a director of: Hologic, Inc., a supplier of diagnostic, medical imaging and surgical products, since December 2013; Talisman Energy Inc., an independent oil and gas exploration and production company, since December 2013; and Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company, since October 2013 (and has been Chairman of the Board of Enzon since November 2013); Carl C. Icahn has non-controlling interests in each of Hologic, Talisman, Enzon and Herbalife through the ownership of securities. Mr. Christodoro received an M.B.A from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business with Distinction, majoring in Finance and Entrepreneurial Management. Mr. Christodoro received a B.S. in Applied Economics and Management Magna Cum Laude with Honors Distinction in Research from Cornell University. Mr. Christodoro also served in the United States Marine Corps.

Mr. Christodoro’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his service on other boards as well as his extensive investment, research and investment banking experience in a variety of industries. Mr. Christodoro was recommended by the Icahn Parties pursuant to the Support Agreement.

		Keith Cozza Age 36   Class II Director since 2013

Keith Cozza has been the President and Chief Executive Officer of Icahn Enterprises LP., a diversified holding company engaged in a variety of businesses, including investment, automotive, energy, gaming, railcar, food packaging, metals, real estate and home fashion, since February 2014. Mr. Cozza has served as Chief Operating Officer of Icahn Capital LP, the subsidiary of Icahn Enterprises through which Carl C. Icahn manages investment funds, since February 2013. From February 2013 to February 2014, Mr. Cozza served as Executive Vice President of Icahn Enterprises. Mr. Cozza is also the Chief Financial Officer of Icahn Associates Holding LLC, a position he has held since 2006. Mr. Cozza has been a director of: American Railcar Leasing LLC, a lessor and seller of specialized railroad tank and covered hopper railcars, since June 2014; Tropicana Entertainment Inc., a company that is primarily engaged in the business of owning and operating casinos and resorts, since February 2014; PSC Metals Inc., a metal recycling company, since February 2014; Icahn Enterprises LP., since September 2012; and XO Holdings, a competitive provider of telecom services, since August 2011. Mr. Cozza was previously a director of CVR Refining, LP, an independent downstream energy limited partnership, from January 2013 to February 2014; and MGM Holdings Inc., an entertainment company focused on the production and distribution of film and television content, from April 2012 to August 2012. American Railcar Leasing, CVR Refining, Icahn Enterprises, PSC Metals, Tropicana and XO Holdings are indirectly controlled by Carl C. Icahn. Mr. Icahn also has or previously had a non-controlling interest in Herbalife and MGM Holdings through the ownership of securities. Mr. Cozza holds a B.S. in Accounting from the University of Dayton.

Mr. Cozza’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his service on other boards as well as his significant corporate, finance, accounting and investment experience. Mr. Cozza was recommended by the Icahn Parties pursuant to the Support Agreement.

		James L. Nelson Age 65   Class II Director since 2014

James L. Nelson has served as a director and member of the audit committee of Icahn Enterprises GP (IEP) since June 2001. Mr. Nelson has served as a director and member of audit committees of the Viskase Companies, Inc. from April 2003 through April 2010, American Entertainment Properties Corp. from May 2005 until November 2007, and Atlantic Coast Entertainment Holdings, Inc. from May 2005 until November 2007. Mr. Nelson has been a director of Tropicana Entertainment Inc. since March 2010 and was a member of the audit committee from March 2010 until December 2013. Mr. Nelson was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Eaglescliff Corporation, a specialty investment banking, consulting and wealth management company from 1986 until 2009. From March 1998 through 2003, Mr. Nelson was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Orbit Aviation, Inc., a company engaged in the acquisition and completion of Boeing Business Jets for private and corporate clients. From August 1995 until July 1999, Mr. Nelson was Chief Executive Officer and Co-Chairman of Orbitex Management, Inc., a financial services company in the mutual fund sector. From August 1995 until March 2001, he was on the Board of Orbitex Financial Services Group. From January 2008 through June 2008, Mr. Nelson served as a director and member of the audit committee of Shuffle Master, Inc., a gaming manufacturing company. From March 2008 until March 2010, Mr. Nelson was a director and served on the audit committee of Pacific Energy Resources Ltd., an energy producer. From April 2008 to November 2012, Mr. Nelson served as a director and as Chairman of the audit committee of the board of directors of Cequel Communications, an owner and operator of a large cable television system. From April 2010 through November 2013, Mr. Nelson served as a director and member of the audit committee of Take Two Interactive Software, Inc. a publisher, developer, and maker of video games and video game peripherals. Since June 2011, Mr. Nelson has served as a director and member of the compensation, governance and strategic alternatives committees of Voltari Corporation (f/k/a Motricity Inc.) and since January 2012, as Chairman of its board of directors. From November 2013 until August, 2014, Mr. Nelson served as a director of VII Peaks Co- Optivist Income BDC II, Inc., an externally managed, closed-end management investment company and from April 2014 until August 2014 as a director of Ubiquity Corp.

Mr. Nelson brings to his service as a director his significant experience in leadership roles serving as Chief Executive Officer, Director and Chairman of audit committees. Mr. Nelson was recommended by the Icahn Parties pursuant to the Support Agreement.

		Michael O. Johnson Age 60   Class I Director since 2003

Mr. Johnson is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Mr. Johnson joined the Company in April 2003 as Chief Executive Officer and became Chairman of the Board in May 2007. Mr. Johnson spent 17 years with The Walt Disney Company, where he most recently served as President of Walt Disney International, and also served as President of Asia Pacific for The Walt Disney Company and President of Buena Vista Home Entertainment. Mr. Johnson has also previously served as a publisher of Audio Times magazine, and has directed the regional sales efforts of Warner Amex Satellite Entertainment Company for three of its television channels, including MTV, Nickelodeon and The Movie Channel. Mr. Johnson formerly served as a director of Univision Communications, Inc., a television company serving Spanish-speaking Americans until March 2007, and on the Board of Regents for Loyola High School of Los Angeles. Mr. Johnson received his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Western State College.

Mr. Johnson’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his eleven years of experience as our Chief Executive Officer, his seven years of experience as our Chairman, and his significant experience in international business matters.

		John Tartol Age 63   Class I Director since 2005

Mr. Tartol has been an independent Herbalife Member for 32 years and a member of the Company’s Chairman’s Club since 2000. He is active in training other Herbalife Members all over the world and has served on various strategy and planning groups for Herbalife. He is also active on behalf of various charities in his community and worldwide on behalf of the Herbalife Family Foundation. He has a Bachelor’s degree in finance from the University of Illinois.

Mr. Tartol’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his 32 years of experience as an Herbalife Member, which brings a first-hand understanding of the function and specific needs of our independent Members, the ultimate drivers of our business, to the Board. His tenure as a Member also provides valuable insight into the Company’s growth and development over the 32-year period.

		Hunter C. Gary Age 40   Class I Director since 2014

Hunter C. Gary has been a director of Cadus, a company focused on licensing yeast-based and other drug discovery technologies to third parties, since February 2014 and has served as President and Chief Executive Officer since March, 2014. He has served as Senior Vice President of Icahn Enterprises L.P. (a diversified holding company engaged in a variety of businesses, including investment, automotive, energy, gaming, railcar, food packaging, metals, real estate and home fashion) since November 2010. Prior to that time, Mr. Gary was employed by Icahn Associates Corporation, an affiliate of Icahn Enterprises L.P., in various roles since June 2003, most recently as the Chief Operating Officer of Icahn Sourcing LLC. From 1997 to 2002, Mr. Gary worked at Kaufhof Warenhaus AG, a subsidiary of the Metro Group AG, most recently as a Managing Director. Mr. Gary has been a director of: Federal-Mogul Corporation, a supplier of automotive powertrain and safety components, since October 2012; Viskase Companies Inc., a meat casing company, since August 2012; PSC Metals Inc., a metal recycling company, since May 2012; XO Holdings, a competitive provider of telecom services, since September 2011; Tropicana Entertainment Inc., a company that is primarily engaged in the business of owning and operating casinos and resorts, since March 2010; Tropicana Entertainment Cayman Holdings Co. Ltd. since January 2011; American Railcar Industries, Inc., a railcar manufacturing company, since January 2008; Voltari Corporation, a mobile data services provider, since October 2007; and WestPoint Home LLC, a home textiles manufacturer, since June 2007. Federal-Mogul, Viskase Companies, PSC Metals, XO Holdings, Tropicana Entertainment, American Railcar Industries and WestPoint Home each are indirectly controlled by Carl C. Icahn. Mr. Icahn also has a non-controlling interest in Voltari through the ownership of securities. Mr. Gary is married to Mr. Carl Icahn’s wife’s daughter. Mr. Gary received his B.S. with senior honors from Georgetown University as well as a certificate of executive development from Columbia Graduate School of Business.

Mr. Gary’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his experience in corporate finance and his experience as a director of various public companies. Mr. Gary was recommended by the Icahn Parties pursuant to the Support Agreement.

		Jesse A. Lynn Age 44   Class I Director since 2014

Jesse A. Lynn has been General Counsel of Icahn Enterprises L.P. (a diversified holding company engaged in a variety of businesses, including investment, automotive, energy, gaming, railcar, food packaging, metals, real estate and home fashion) since January 2015. From September 2004 to January 2015, Mr. Lynn was Assistant General Counsel of Icahn Enterprises. Prior to joining Icahn Enterprises, Mr. Lynn worked as an associate in the New York office of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. in its business and finance department from February 2000 until September 2004. From September 1996 until February 2000, Mr. Lynn was an associate in the corporate group at Gordon Altman Butowsky Weitzen Shalov & Wein. Mr. Lynn received a B.A. in 1992 from the University of Michigan and a J.D. in 1996 from the Boston University School of Law.

Mr. Lynn’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his legal and finance experience as well as his positions with Icahn Enterprises. Mr. Lynn was recommended by the Icahn Parties pursuant to the Support Agreement.

		Richard P. Bermingham Age 75   Class III Director since 2004

Mr. Bermingham is currently retired, and has over 40 years of business experience. From 1994 to 1997, Mr. Bermingham was the Vice Chairman of the Board of American Golf. Mr. Bermingham worked for Collins Food International, which was acquired by Sizzler International, Inc., from 1967 to 1994. He served as the Chief Executive Officer and a member of the board of directors of this publicly traded company for the period from 1987 to 1994. Mr. Bermingham currently serves on the board of Special Value Expansion Fund, LLC. Additionally, Mr. Bermingham served on the board of Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. until December 31, 2013, the board of Interactive Health, Inc. until May 2011 and the board of EaglePicher Corp. until 2012. Mr. Bermingham was a certified public accountant and received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Colorado.

Mr. Bermingham’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his significant consumer marketing experience, which is relevant to the Company’s business operations in selling and manufacturing packaged food and nutritional supplement products; his past professional financial experience, which provides the Board with important knowledge regarding financial reporting rules; his prior service as a chief executive officer, which helps the Board better understand management’s day-to-day actions and responsibilities; and his service on other public company boards, which adds a depth of knowledge to our Board as to best practices in corporate governance.

		Dr. Richard Carmona Age 65   Class III Director since 2013

Dr. Carmona has been Vice Chairman of Canyon Ranch, a life-enhancement company, since October 2006. He also serves as Chief Executive Officer of the Canyon Ranch Health division and president of the nonprofit Canyon Ranch Institute. He is also the first Distinguished Professor of Public Health at the Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health at the University of Arizona. Prior to joining Canyon Ranch, Dr. Carmona served as the 17th Surgeon General of the United States from August 2002 through July 2006. Previously, he was Chairman of the State of Arizona Southern Regional Emergency Medical System; a professor of surgery, public health, and family and community medicine at the University of Arizona; and surgeon and deputy sheriff of the Pima County, Arizona, Sheriff’s Department. Dr. Carmona served in the U.S. Army and the Army’s Special Forces. Dr. Carmona is a director of Taser International Healthline Networks and Clorox.

Dr. Carmona’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his extensive experience in public health and clinical sciences. His commitment to prevention as an effective means to improve public health and reduce health care costs brings valuable and significant insight to the Board, and his experience serving on other public company boards adds a depth of knowledge as to best practices in corporate governance.

		Jeffrey T. Dunn Age 57   Class III Director since 2009

Mr. Dunn has served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Bolthouse Farms, a premier health and wellness company located in Bakersfield, California, since May 2008. Bolthouse Farms is the North American leader in growing/processing of fresh carrots as well as a growing national brand of super-premium juices and smoothies. From January 2006 through December 2007, Mr. Dunn served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Ubiquity Brands, Inc., the parent company of Jay Foods, Inc., a Midwestern manufacturer and marketer of snacks, and prior to Ubiquity was the Managing Partner of Grassy Lakes Partners, an investment and consulting firm. From 1985 to 2004, Mr. Dunn held a variety of senior executive positions with The Coca-Cola Company, serving most recently as Executive Vice President, President and Chief Operating Officer of Coca-Cola North America and previously serving as President and Chief Operating Officer of Coca-Cola Americas. Mr. Dunn received his Bachelor’s degree in business administration from the University of Georgia and his MBA from Pepperdine University. In 2010, Mr. Dunn was appointed to the advisory board of the U.S. Food Day Initiative for the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Mr. Dunn’s qualifications to serve on our Board include his significant consumer marketing experience, which is relevant to the Company’s business operations in selling and manufacturing packaged food and nutritional supplement products; his significant knowledge and experience regarding international business matters, which is relevant to the Company in light of its operations across 91 countries worldwide; and his service as a chief executive officer, which helps the Board better understand management’s day-to-day actions and responsibilities.

		Maria Otero Age 64   Class III Director since 2013

Maria Otero currently serves on the Council on Foreign Relations and serves on the boards of Kresge Foundation, Public Welfare Foundation and Development Alternatives Inc. and BancoSol, Bolivia. She has chaired the board of Bread for the World, and also served on the boards of the Calvert Foundation, U.S. Institute for Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and BRAC in Bangladesh. Ms. Otero also worked as an economist for Latin America and the Caribbean in the Women in Development Office of USAID. In 1986, Ms. Otero joined Accion, one of the first micro lending organizations in the world, as country director in Honduras. In 2000, President Clinton appointed Otero to the board of the United States Institute of Peace, where she served for eight years. In 2006 she was appointed by Secretary General Kofi Annan to the U.N. Advisors Group on Inclusive Financial Sectors. In June 2009, Otero was nominated to serve as undersecretary for Democracy and Global Affairs, which made her the highest ranking Hispanic official at the State Department, and the first Latina undersecretary in its history. On January 17, 2012, Secretary Clinton named Maria Otero as undersecretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights, a newly created office and position at the State Department. During her time at the Department of State, Under Secretary Otero also served as the President’s Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues. Otero holds an M.A. in literature from the University of Maryland; an M.A. in international relations from the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), at the Johns Hopkins University; and an honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters from Dartmouth College.

Ms. Otero’s qualifications to serve on our Board include an expansive career focused on empowering those less fortunate around the world, and her leadership, extensive public service and microfinance experience which add a valuable breadth and depth of knowledge to the Board.

Our executive compensation program is intended to attract, motivate and retain a talented and high-performing executive team to lead the Company’s success selling food, dietary supplements and personal care products that are regulated at varying levels in the markets where we operate through a direct selling business channel. The Company’s executive compensation program is designed to incent and create long-term growth and enhanced value for shareholders and is simple in design. The vast majority of the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers — the officers identified in Part 4 — “Compensation discussion and analysis” — is tied to Company operating and share price performance. Volume Point growth, operating income and earnings per share are used to determine executives’ annual incentive compensation. Long term incentives were provided to our named executive officers in 2014 in the form of an annual grant of SARs that are subject to performance and service criteria. These awards directly align the long-term interests of our executives with those of our shareholders.

At our 2014 annual general meeting, our shareholders expressed strong support for our 2013 executive compensation program, with over 98% of votes cast in favor of the advisory vote proposal. When designing our 2014 executive compensation program, the compensation committee of the Board of Directors, or the Committee, considered, among other things, our 2010-2013 financial performance and shareholder feedback, and after careful consideration, determined to model our 2014 executive compensation program after our program in 2013.

We believe that the Company’s financial performance is facilitated by the “pay for performance” design of our

compensation program. Our program motivates our executives to deliver financial results, with the appropriate level of risk taking, against three performance metrics in a manner that ultimately aligns with the realized growth of shareholder equity value.

Additional information regarding the Company’s compensation program applicable to the named executive officers is described in Part 4 — “Compensation discussion and analysis” and the related tables and narrative disclosure. For the reasons discussed above, the Board of Directors unanimously recommends that shareholders vote in favor of the following resolution:

“Resolved, that the shareholders approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the named executive officers, as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K and described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables and the accompanying narrative disclosure, in the proxy statement.”

While the resolution is non-binding, the Board of Directors values the opinions that shareholders express in their votes and in any additional dialogue. It will consider the outcome of the vote and those opinions when making future compensation decisions. The next shareholder advisory vote on the Company’s executive compensation is expected to occur at the 2016 annual general meeting and the Company currently intends to offer shareholders this advisory vote on an annual basis.

The audit committee has selected PricewaterhouseCoopers, or PwC, as the Company’s independent registered public accountants for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015. Services provided to the Company and its subsidiaries by PwC in fiscal 2014 and 2013 are described below under “—Fees to independent registered public accountants for fiscal 2014 and 2013.” Additional information regarding the audit committee is set forth in the “Audit committee report.”

The Memorandum and Articles of Association do not require that our shareholders ratify the selection of PwC as the Company’s independent registered public accountants. However, we are requesting ratification because we believe it is a matter of good corporate practice. If the Company’s shareholders do not ratify the selection, the audit committee will reconsider whether or not to retain PwC, but may, nonetheless, retain PwC as the Company’s independent registered public accountants. Even if the selection is ratified, the audit committee in its discretion may change the appointment at any time if it determines that the change would be in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders.

The Company has been advised that representatives of PwC will be present at the Meeting where they will have an opportunity to make a statement if they desire to do so and will be available to respond to appropriate questions.

Change in independent accountants

As previously disclosed, on April 8, 2013, KPMG LLP, or KPMG, notified the Company that KPMG resigned, effective immediately, as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. KPMG stated it had concluded it was no longer independent because of the then-alleged insider trading in the Company’s securities by one of KPMG’s former partners who, until April 5, 2013, was the KPMG engagement partner on the Company’s audit. KPMG advised the Company it resigned as the Company’s independent accountant solely due to the impairment of KPMG’s independence resulting from its now former partner’s unlawful activities and not for any reason related to the Company’s financial statements, its accounting practices, the integrity of the Company’s management or for any other reason. As a result of the then-alleged insider trading activity by its now former partner and KPMG’s resulting resignation on April 8, 2013, KPMG notified the Company its independence had been impaired and it had no option but to withdraw its audit reports on the Company’s financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012 and that such reports should no longer be relied upon as a result of KPMG’s lack of independence created by the circumstances described above.

On May 21, 2013, after considering a number of firms, the audit committee engaged PwC to serve as the Company’s new independent registered public accounting firm to audit the Company’s financial statements for its fiscal year ending December 31, 2013 and to re-audit the Company’s financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, including the audit of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012 required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

None of KPMG’s audit reports on the Company’s financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012 or KPMG’s audit reports on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012 contained an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion, nor was any such report qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles. In addition, at no point during the three fiscal years ended December 31, 2012 and the subsequent interim period through April 8, 2013 were there any (i) disagreements with KPMG on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure or auditing scope or procedures, which disagreement(s), if not resolved to the satisfaction of KPMG, would have caused it to make reference to the subject matter of the disagreement(s) in connection with its reports, or (ii) “reportable events” as such term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K.

Additionally, during the fiscal years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012, and the subsequent interim period through May 21, 2013, neither the Company, nor anyone on its behalf, consulted PwC regarding either (i) the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed, or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered with respect to the Company’s consolidated financial statements, in connection with which either a written report or oral advice was provided to the Company that PwC concluded was an important factor considered by the Company in reaching a decision as to the accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue; or (ii) any matter that was either the subject of a “disagreement” as such term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-K and the related instructions or a “reportable event” as such term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K.

Audit committee report

The audit committee is responsible for monitoring our financial auditing, accounting and financial reporting processes and our system of internal controls, and selecting the independent registered public accounting firm on behalf of the Board of Directors. Our management has primary responsibility for our internal controls and reporting process. Our independent registered public accounting firm, PwC, is responsible for performing an independent audit of our

consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and issuing an opinion thereon. In this context, the audit committee met regularly and held discussions with management and PwC. Management represented to the audit committee that the consolidated financial statements for fiscal year 2014 were prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

The audit committee hereby reports as follows:

Based on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the audit committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the audited consolidated financial statements be included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, which have been filed with the SEC. The audit committee also selected PwC to serve as our independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2015.

AUDIT COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Richard P. Bermingham (Chairman)

James L. Nelson

Jeffrey T. Dunn

Pre-approval policy

The audit committee has adopted pre-approval policies and procedures for audit and non-audit services which the Company’s independent auditors have historically provided. Pursuant to those policies and procedures, the

Company’s external auditor cannot be engaged to provide the Company any audit or non-audit services to the Company unless the engagement is pre-approved by the audit committee in compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. All fees and services described in the table above were pre-approved pursuant to this policy.

This Proposal is proposed as a “Special Resolution” in accordance with the Companies Law (2013 Revision).

The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders approve an amendment to our Memorandum and Articles of Association to implement a majority voting standard for the election of directors in uncontested elections.

We are incorporated in the Cayman Islands. Our Memorandum and Articles of Association provide that our directors are elected by a plurality vote. Under a plurality voting standard, only “for” votes are counted because the nominees who receive the most votes are elected. Votes “against” and abstentions are disregarded. Therefore, in an uncontested election (i.e., an election where the number of persons nominated for election does not exceed the number of Directors to be elected) a nominee could be elected with only one “for” vote, despite an overwhelming number of “against” votes.

In 2012, our Principles of Corporate Governance were amended to include a policy that incorporates a form of majority voting for uncontested director elections. Under this policy, any current director who is a nominee in an uncontested election and does not receive a majority of votes cast “for” his or her election is required to tender his or her resignation. The nominating and corporate governance committee (excluding the nominee in question if applicable) is then required to make a recommendation to the Board as to whether the Board should accept the director’s resignation. The Board would make a final determination as to whether to accept the director’s resignation and be required to disclose its decision-making process.

When it adopted this policy, the Board recognized that the majority vote standard was an evolving concept. The Board has continued to monitor best practices in this area, and is aware that many public companies have amended their governing documents to provide for a majority voting standard rather than a plurality standard. The Board believes that a majority voting standard would provide shareholders with a more meaningful role in director elections by giving effect to shareholders’ votes “against” a nominee for director, and by requiring more votes “for” a nominee in order for that nominee to be elected to the Board. Accordingly, after careful consideration, the Board believes it is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders at this time to amend our Memorandum and Articles of Association to provide for majority voting in uncontested director elections.

Under a majority voting standard in uncontested director elections, each vote is required to be counted “for” or “against” a director nominee’s election. In order to be elected, the votes cast “for” such nominee’s election must exceed the number of votes cast “against” such nominee’s election. Shareholders will also be entitled to abstain with respect to the election of a director, although abstentions will have no effect in determining whether the required affirmative majority vote has been obtained. In contested elections, as is the case under the existing policy in the Principles of Corporate Governance, directors will continue to be elected by a plurality of the votes cast.

Under our Memorandum and Articles of Association and the Companies Law (2013 Revision), a majority of not less than 66.67% of the Common Shares present or represented by proxy and entitled to vote must approve an amendment to the Memorandum and Articles of Association in order to change the voting standard in director elections. If the proposed amendment is approved, Article 91 of our Memorandum and Articles of Association will be amended and restated to read as follows:

In any vote of Members to appoint Directors, each person nominated for appointment as a Director in an uncontested election shall be appointed if the number of votes cast for the person’s appointment exceeds the number of votes cast against the person’s appointment. In all votes to appoint Directors other than uncontested elections, the persons receiving the largest number of votes cast for appointment, up to the number of Directors to be appointed in such vote, shall be deemed appointed. For purposes of this Article 91, an “uncontested election” means any meeting of Members at which, as of the date that is ten (10) days in advance of the date the Company files its definitive proxy statement with respect to such meeting (regardless of whether or not thereafter revised or supplemented) with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the number of persons nominated for appointment does not exceed the number of Directors to be appointed.

If approved by our shareholders, this amendment will become effective immediately following the shareholder vote. The new majority voting standard would then be applicable to an uncontested election of directors thereafter. Additionally, if this amendment is approved, the majority voting policy will be removed from the Company’s Principles of Corporate Governance. The majority voting policy would no longer be necessary because our Memorandum and Articles of Association

would require a majority voting standard in uncontested elections and there is no concept of a holdover director under Cayman Islands law that would necessitate mandatory resignations. Specifically, by operation of a majority voting standard under Cayman Islands law and

the provisions of the Amended and Restated Articles of Association as proposed to be amended, the term of a director who does not receive sufficient votes to be re-elected would end following such vote, resulting in a vacancy on the Board.

Shareholder proposal

William Steiner, 112 Abbottsford Gate, Piermont, NY 10968, who represented to the Company that, as of October 21, 2014, he was the beneficial owner of at least 100 Common Shares, has given notice that he intends to present for action at the Meeting the resolution set forth below. In accordance with applicable proxy rules the proposal and supporting statements, for which the Company accepts no responsibility, are set forth below.

Proposal 5 – Directors to be Elected by Majority Vote

Resolved: Shareholders hereby request that our Board of Directors initiate the appropriate process to amend our Company’s articles of incorporation and/or bylaws to provide that director nominees shall be elected by the affirmative vote of the majority of votes cast at an annual meeting of shareholders, with a plurality vote standard retained for contested director elections, that is, when the number of director nominees exceeds the number of board seats.

In order to provide shareholders a meaningful role in director elections, our Company’s current director election standard should be changed from a plurality vote standard to a majority vote standard. The majority vote standard is the most appropriate voting standard for director elections where only board nominated candidates are on the ballot. It will establish a challenging vote standard for board nominees, and will improve the

performance of individual directors and the entire board. Under our Company’s current voting system, a director nominee can be elected with as little as a single yes-vote. A majority vote standard would require that a nominee receive a majority of the votes cast in order to be elected.

More than 77% of the companies in the S&P 500 have adopted majority voting for uncontested elections. Herbalife has an opportunity to join the growing list of companies that have already adopted this standard

Please vote to enhance shareholder value:

Directors to be Elected by Majority Vote – Proposal 5

Company response

As discussed above under “— Proposal 4: Approval of an amendment the company’s amended and restated memorandum and articles of association to provide for majority voting in uncontested director elections,” after careful consideration, the Board believes it is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to amend our Memorandum and Articles of Association to provide for a majority voting standard for uncontested director elections, thereby effecting the action recommended by the shareholder proposal. Therefore, the Board of Directors unanimously recommends a vote for the shareholder proposal.

Executive summary of our compensation program

Our executive compensation program is designed to attract, motivate and retain a talented and high-performing executive team to lead the Company’s global success selling food, dietary supplements and personal care products that are regulated to varying levels in the 91 markets where we operate through a direct selling business model. The compensation program accomplishes this through a balanced approach placing emphasis on short term goals while also rewarding behavior that creates long-term growth and enhanced value for our shareholders. The Committee has the responsibility for establishing, developing and implementing these programs while ensuring an appropriate level of risk tasking.

Program features

The direct compensation of our NEOs in 2014 consisted of base salary, annual cash incentives, and grants of equity in the form of performance SARs (other than Mr. Hoffman). Due to the proportion of annual cash incentives and performance SARs, the vast majority of the total compensation of our NEOs is tied to the Company’s financial and share price performance. In setting target compensation, the Committee focuses on the total compensation opportunity for the executive. Although there is no targeted mix of compensation elements, the proportion of compensation designed to be delivered in variable pay versus base salary increases with the ability of the executive to influence overall Company performance. For 2014, the percentage of targeted compensation

assuming maximum bonus achievement provided in the form of annual and long-term incentives tied to the Company’s top line performance, EPS results, Sales Leader retention and stock price was 88% for our CEO and 76-84% for our other NEOs as a group other than Mr. Hoffman. Actual compensation paid provided in the form of such incentives was 80% for our CEO and 71-76% for our other NEOs as a group.

Several key operating performance measures that drive our share value — Volume Point growth, Operating Income and EPS — are used in the annual incentive plans for our named executive officers. Each of these measures is more fully described in “Annual Incentive Awards — Targets and Award Determination,” below. Long-term incentives granted in 2014 in the form of performance SARs provide a direct alignment to increasing sales leader retention and to enhancing long-term shareholder value.

The program’s most effective feature is its direct emphasis on the pay for performance feature most relevant to our shareholders – namely, share price appreciation. That equity component, which is the sole form of long term incentive for the NEOs, ensures that our NEOs interests are directly aligned with those of our shareholders. This award has represented 49%, 48% and 74% of total targeted compensation for our CEO in 2012, 2013 and 2014 respectively. In 2014 as our share price and total shareholder returns decline, our NEOs have seen the value of their equity incentive awards decline significantly, as set forth below. This decline in share price has created a retention challenge that the committee is currently evaluating.

Additionally, due to the decline in the Company’s share price in 2014, Mr. Johnson’s 2011 performance SAR failed to vest and was cancelled resulting in a return of 864,000 shares to the Company. The performance SARs had two measurement triggers, one which was growth in Volume Points was achieved, the second trigger, that was not achieved, was an average closing price of the Company’s common stock over the month of December 2014 having not met or exceeded $69.49.

Things we do

Our executive compensation program is simple in design, and follows guidelines that have repeatedly proven

effective in creating a “pay for performance” culture and has led us to sustained profitable growth. These include:

Things we don’t do

The Committee is committed to maintaining and adopting prevailing best practices with regard to executive compensation. As such, we DO NOT DO the following:

Executive compensation program objectives

As a leader in nutritional products sold through a direct selling distribution channel, generating approximately 80% of our net sales outside the United States, we operate in an environment of challenging regulatory, economic and geopolitical uncertainty. Our success depends on the leadership of a highly-talented, adaptive and dedicated executive team. Our compensation program for our NEOs provides highly-competitive rewards to executives who contribute to our annual success in achieving superior growth in revenues and profitability, as well as increasing shareholder returns over time.

The Committee believes that shareholder interests are advanced if the Company assembles, motivates and rewards a high-performing management team. To promote this objective, the Committee was guided by the following underlying principles in developing its executive compensation program:

Establishing CEO compensation

The Chair of the Committee, with input from the compensation advisor, recommends the CEO’s compensation to the Committee in an executive session not attended by the CEO. Once a recommendation has been established by the Committee, the CEO’s compensation is reviewed and approved by the independent members of the Board.

Role of executive officers in executive compensation decisions

The CEO reviews compensation data gathered from a group of peer companies approved by the Committee and described below under “— Peer Group”, or the Herbalife Peer Group, and general industry compensation surveys, considers each executive officer’s performance and scope of responsibility, and makes a recommendation to the Committee on changes to base salary, annual incentive awards and equity awards for each executive officer other than himself. The CEO participates in Committee meetings at the Committee’s request to provide background information regarding the Company’s strategic objectives and to evaluate the performance of and compensation recommendations for the other executive officers. The Committee utilizes the information provided by the CEO along with input from its compensation advisor and the knowledge and experience of its members in making compensation decisions.

Annual incentive awards & long-term incentive program

General

Target annual incentive compensation, and equity grant values, are set as a percentage of each executive’s base salary. In setting target annual and long-term incentive compensation levels, the Committee focuses on the total compensation opportunity for each executive. Variations

in compensation among our executive officers reflect differences in the scope, responsibility and complexity of the functions they oversee, the contribution of those functions to our overall performance, their experience and capabilities, and individual performance. Although there is no targeted mix of compensation elements, the proportion of compensation designed to be delivered in variable pay vs. base salary increases with the ability of the executive to influence overall Company results. We also

monitor the compensation practices of our peers to obtain a general understanding of competitive compensation practices and target metrics.

Annual incentive awards

Our annual cash incentive plan is designed to motivate and reward the achievement of annual financial targets and key operating goals that should create value for our shareholders. The Committee establishes financial performance targets and goals for our incentive plan each year that are consistent with the Company’s 5 year plan, current business conditions, alignment with public investor expectations and overall performance that is competitive with those of the Herbalife Peer Group. The performance measures used for each named executive officer are based on the executive’s primary area of focus and the executive’s ability to affect the Company’s results. The criteria used for 2014 match those used in each of 2009-2013 and consist of targeted EPS which the Committee believes is an important measure of shareholder value creation that aligns the interest of our executives with the expectations of our investors, year-over-year Volume Point growth, serving as a proxy for sales growth, and targeted Operating Income.

In addition to setting performance targets, the Committee has established two limitations, or guardrails, within the annual incentive plan that can affect the aggregate value of the awards. The first guardrail is the requirement that the aggregate payments made under the annual incentive plan cannot exceed 10% of the Company’s Operating Income for the year. The second guardrail is the requirement that the total management bonus payout should not exceed the annual Mark Hughes bonus payout⁽¹⁾ to the Company’s independent members.

Mr. Johnson’s target and maximum annual incentive as a percentage of his base salary was negotiated and is set forth in his March 2008 employment agreement. The minimum target annual incentive as a percentage of base salary for Mr. Goudis was set forth in his January 2010 employment agreement. Subject to those limits, target incentives for our executives are set by the Committee depending on the employee’s position, scope of responsibilities, ability to influence Company results, and competitive pay practices among the Herbalife Peer Group.

Mr. Johnson’s employment agreement provides for a “base” annual incentive award equal to  ³/₄ of his total annual incentive opportunity payable to the extent the Company achieves EPS targets set by the Committee. Mr. Johnson’s employment agreement also provides for a supplemental annual incentive award payable in the event of the achievement of an alternative performance target, or APT, equal to  ¹/₄ of his total annual incentive opportunity. The APT incentive allows the Committee a degree of flexibility in incentivizing and rewarding him for the achievement of key strategic, as well as financial, targets. As in each of 2009-2013, Volume Point growth was used in 2014 to determine Mr. Johnson’s APT incentive in order to encourage a keen focus on the top-line growth valued by our investors.

Mr. Hoffman joined the Company in August 2014. As a result of his mid-year hire, he did not participate in our incentive program in 2014 but instead received a guaranteed bonus of $360,000. References below to our NEOs participation in our annual incentive plan exclude Mr. Hoffman.

Targets and award determination

Performance targets are aligned to what we believe to be the expectations of our Board and investors at the time of

the annual budget review, typically in October of the preceding year of the relevant performance period, and can be modified based upon current business trends at

the first meeting of the Board in performance period. Budget figures are built from the “bottom up” based on input from operating regions regarding trends in their respective markets, including the general economic environment, sale and consumption of our products, sales leader activity and retention, and the degree of risk in achieving forecasted revenue and expense levels. In setting performance targets, the Committee also considers the Company’s 5 year plan, Wall Street analysts’ financial expectations for the Company, and the performance targets of selected companies within the Herbalife Peer Group.

For purposes of our annual incentive plan, the performance measures are defined as follows: