Andre Vaughn’s bankruptcy settles Youngevity lawsuit
Andre Vaughn’s Feb 2022 Chapter 7 bankruptcy has resulted in a settlement agreement with Youngevity.
On April 19th Vaughn filed a Status Report updating the court on his bankruptcy proceedings.
On November 5, 2021, Vaughn filed a Petition for Bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania.
On November 17, 2021, Vaughn filed a Notice of Bankruptcy Filing, notifying this Court and all Parties in the above-captioned case of his Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing.
On February 11, 2022, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued an Order of Discharge, discharging Vaughn’s debts pursuant to 11 U.S.C §727.
Vaughn argued that as a result of his bankruptcy, he believed
all claims have been resolved as to all parties and that the above-captioned case is ripe for dismissal in its entirety.
Youngevity initially responded in opposition to Vaughn’s assertion, arguing that their lawsuit wasn’t specifically referenced in Vaughn’s bankruptcy.
Following a response from Vaughn reasserting his position, Youngevity filed a joint motion dismissing its claims against Vaughn on May 13th. Vaughn has also agreed to release Youngevity from any claims.
On May 16th the court scheduled a hearing on May 18th to sign off on the filing.
As of yet the court docket hasn’t updated but I suspect the last settlement will wrap up the case.
Youngevity named Vaughn as a defendant in a lawsuit filed back in 2016.
As uncovered by BehindMLM reader K. Chang, Vaughn has a history of filing for bankruptcy related to MLM.
On social media Vaughn refers to himself as a “multi millionaire entrepreneur” and “wealth influencer”.
I’ll check back on the Youngevity case docket in a few days. Hopefully they’ll have wrapped up the case by then.
Update 29th May 2022 – The court approved Youngevity’s Motion to Dismiss on May 26th.
This brings the case and BehindMLM’s coverage of “Youngevity International, Corp. v. Smith et al” to a close.