Vemma preliminary injunction hearing delayed till Sep 15th

5 Comments on “Vemma preliminary injunction hearing delayed till Sep 15th”

#1

Art

Sep 3rd, 2015 at 12:51 pm  Art(Q)

I do think that Vemma should have been, and should be, allowed to access their only means of defending themselves.

Regardless of what they may or may not have done, it was always my understanding that people and entities should be entitled to their prompt day in court in a fair democracy.

But in this case, they’re being really screwed around while ‘the federal system’ takes its own sweet time to (behind closed doors) cook up a case against them that may or may not be fair.

While meantime, Vemma’s ship of state is taking more and more water and sinking lower and lower.

I hope all these other MLM companies are amused by this because they could be next.



#2

anjali

Sep 3rd, 2015 at 2:07 pm  anjali(Q)

Art: But in this case, they’re being really screwed around while ‘the federal system’ takes its own sweet time to (behind closed doors) cook up a case against them that may or may not be fair.

the FTC’s case is already filed. it is vemma which needs time to prepare it’s case.

if the FTC’s case is unfair, the court will throw it out. if vemma is right, they will win. the TRO is temporary. vemma can get it reversed, if it proves it’s case.

so, vemma is not some victim of the federal system. vemma will have it’s full democratic rights to plead its case and be heard impartially.



#3

anjali

Sep 3rd, 2015 at 2:18 pm  anjali(Q)

in the italy pyramid scheme case, this was vemma’s core argument:

vemma:

the network is not a pyramid scheme in that it does not reward mere enrollment in the absence of product sales.

… No compensation is paid for the enrollment of new associates, on the contrary, all compensation is linked to sales of products, in a spirit of paying higher compensation to associates who demonstrate the ability to sell, directly or indirectly, greater volumes of products.

italy’s AGCM [competition and markets authority] responded to vemma’s explanation by saying:

AGCM:

in a pyramid sales scheme the product . . . to be sold becomes secondary, simply providing the pretext and opportunity to enroll other consumers to participate in the pyramid by making . . . (purchases), thus artificially enabling the scheme to feed itself.

For this reason, newly enrolled sales representatives, as soon as they join the pyramid scheme, will pursue the primary objective to find other representatives and have them pay for the right to join or remain within the pyramid; the latter in turn will seek others, and so on…

Those who last joined the pyramid scheme will only be able to earn the promised amounts . . . if a high number of participants join and make sales, while there is a strong risk that the chain will break and that the new associates will never obtain any actual economic benefit.

IMO the arguments before the US federal court will essentially be the same, but will also include an argument by vemma, that affilaites on autoship were buying for self consumption because vemma products are high quality products with great science behind them.



#4

anjali

Sep 3rd, 2015 at 2:22 pm  anjali(Q)

this is the vemma sales data, reported by the italy AGCM investigation:

– Only 27% of associates were eligible for bonuses by regularly ordering products from Vemma.

– Fewer than 100 individuals on average generated six-month sales commissions higher than €1,000 (about $1,300 in June 2013), while nearly all the other associates received quite low or even paltry compensation.

– A significant portion of the orders consisted of purchases made by associates themselves, presumably for their own consumption, which in the network are known as “autoship” sales.

– Approximately 20% of the total income generated from product sales was obtained from the sale of expensive Vemma packages called “Builder Packs” that cost €599 or €999 (about $700 to $1,300 in June 2013), and over 60% was generated from autoship sales.

– Only about 16% of the income was generated from the sale of products to third parties.

– Only 24% of associates had a VAT number, which would enable them to sell products to third parties.

i imagine vemma sales data in the US should be comparable to the above.



#5

hoss

Sep 3rd, 2015 at 5:35 pm  hoss(Q)

Art: I do think that Vemma should have been, and should be, allowed to access their only means of defending themselves.

It appears Vemma has been afforded access and has ten days in which to file a written response….to be followed by a hearing five days later. What’s your beef?