MLM Cases – MLM, Network Marketing, Direct Selling News, Videos, Articles, Legal Updates, and More. http://mlmlegal.com/MLMBlog From Multilevel Marketing Attorney and Business Consultant, Jeff Babener. Run, Learn & Get Lost at MLMLegal.com Sat, 07 Mar 2020 15:31:49 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.25 Full Text of SEC Complaint Zeek Rewards http://mlmlegal.com/MLMBlog/full-text-of-sec-complaint-zeek-rewards/ Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:45:19 +0000 http://mlmlegal.com/MLMBlog/?p=223 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION   SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, vs. REX VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a ZEEKREWARDS.COM, and PAUL R. BURKS, Defendant, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) … Continue reading

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.

]]>

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION

 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

vs.

REX VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a ZEEKREWARDS.COM, and PAUL R. BURKS,

Defendant,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.
     

 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) alleges as follows:

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

1.                                                                                              The Commission files this emergency action to halt the fraudulent

unregistered offer and sale of securities in an unregistered investment contracts constituting securities in a combined Ponzi and Pyramid scheme perpetrated by Defendants Rex Venture Group, LLC (“Rex Venture”) d/b/a

 

www.ZeekRewards.com (“ZeekRewards”) and its principal, Paul Burks (“Burks”) (collectively “Defendants”).

  1. Defendants solicit investors through the internet and over interstate wires to participate in the ZeekRewards program, a self-described “affiliate advertising division” for the companion website, www.zeekler.com (“Zeekler”), through which Defendants operate penny auctions.
  2. Since approximately January 2011 through the present, the Defendants have raised more than $600 million from approximately 1 million investors nationwide and overseas by making unregistered offers and sales of securities through the ZeekRewards website in the form of Premium Subscriptions and VIP Bids.
  3. Unbeknownst to its investors, ZeekRewards is, in reality, a massive Ponzi and pyramid scheme.
  4. Approximately 98% of ZeekRewards’ total revenues, and correspondingly the purported share of “net profits” paid to current investors, are comprised of funds received from new investors.
  5. Defendants currently hold approximately $225 million in investor funds in approximately 15 foreign and domestic financial institutions, and those funds are at risk of imminent dissipation and depletion.
  6. Defendants have violated, and unless enjoined will continue to violate, the antifraud and securities registration provisions of the federal securities laws. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendants are likely to engage in future violations of the federal securities laws. Accordingly, the Commission (A) seeks to preserve investor funds through an asset freeze, (B) seeks orders (i) for an accounting, (ii) prohibiting the destruction of documents and (iii) appointing a temporary receiver over the Defendants’ assets; and (C) seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against each of the Defendants.

 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

  1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d)(l) and 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d)(l) & 77v(a)] and Sections 21(d)(l), 21(d)(3)(A), 21(e) and 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(l), 78u(d)(3)(A), 78u(e) & 78aa]. Defendants have, directly or indirectly, made use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the mails, or of the facilities of a national securities exchange, in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged in this complaint.
  2. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)] and Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.

 

§ 78aa, because certain of the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of conduct constituting violations of the federal securities laws occurred within this district. Both Defendant Burks and Defendant Rex Venture d/b/a/ ZeekRewards transacted business, and offered and sold the securities that are the subject of this action, to investors in this district.

DEFENDANTS

  1. 10.                   Paul R. Burks, age 65, is a resident of Lexington, North Carolina. Burks is the sole owner of Rex Venture Group, LLC, and exercises control over ZeekRewards, Zeekler, and other affiliated websites.
  2. 11.                   Rex Venture Group, LLC (“Rex Venture”) is a Nevada limited liability company with its principal place of business in Lexington, North Carolina. Rex Venture wholly owns and operates ZeekRewards, an internet website (www.zeekrewards.com) with physical operations in Lexington, North Carolina, and internet customers and contacts throughout the United States and internationally.

 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

ORIGINS OF ZEEKREWARS

  1. Since 1997, Burks has operated through Rex Venture (and its corporate predecessor) several online, multi-level marketing businesses.
  2. In 2010, Burks created Zeekler.com, a penny auction website offering items ranging from personal electronics to cash. Penny auctions require participants to pay a non-refundable fee to purchase and place each incremental bid (typically one cent) on merchandise sold via auction. The penny auctions were not particularly successful until Burks launched ZeekRewards in January 2011.
  3. ZeekRewards is the self-described “private, invitation-only, affiliate advertising division” of Zeekler. Bidders on Zeekler.com penny auctions can acquire bids by purchasing bids on Zeekler.com, but ZeekRewards and its affiliates also sell or give away free sample bids to be used in the penny auctions.

THE ZEEKREWARDS OFFERING

  1. Through publicly available websites that Defendants own, operate, control, or sponsor, Defendants solicit persons to become investors or “affiliates” in ZeekRewards.
  2. Through the ZeekRewards program, Defendants offer affiliates several ways to earn money, two of which involve the offer and sale of securities in the form of investment contracts: the “Retail Profit Pool” and the “Matrix.”
  3. From at least January 2011 through the present, via the ZeekRewards website, Defendants have raised at least $600 million through the offer and sale of securities (via the Retail Profit Pool and the Matrix) to more than 1 million domestic and international investors.
  4. Defendants have not made any effort to determine if investors in fact have the financial wherewithal to invest, nor have they ever made any effort to determine if investors have any experience investing before investors commit any capital to ZeekRewards.
  5. No registration statement has been filed or has been in effect with the Commission in connection with the securities the Defendants are offering and selling, and have offered and sold.

 

1. THE RETAIL PROFIT POOL

  1. Defendants attracted new investors to ZeekRewards with the promise of daily profit-share awards distributed through a Retail Profit Pool, which operates as a Ponzi scheme. According to the ZeekRewards website, through the Retail Profit Pool the company shares “up to 50% of the daily net profits” with affiliates who meet certain qualifications (“Qualified Affiliates”).
  2. To become a Qualified Affiliate, investors must satisfy four criteria: (i) enroll in a monthly subscription plan requiring payments of $10, $50, or $99 per month; (ii) enroll new penny auction customers personally, through the

ZeekRewards co-op program, or through third-party businesses endorsed by ZeekRewards; (iii) sell at retail or purchase and give away as samples a minimum of ten Zeekler.com bids, earning Profit Points; and (iv) place one free ad daily for Zeekler.com and submit proof to ZeekRewards.

  1. The requirements to become a Qualified Affiliate constitute an investment in a common enterprise and require little or no investor effort.
  2. Qualified Affiliates have no role in ZeekRewards’ operations. The Defendants alone created, update and operate the websites, handle all payments, manage the bank accounts and payment service providers, manage affiliate and customer accounts, manage all affiliate and customer services, oversee and disburse all bids, operate the auctions, create all advertisements, sponsor recruiting videos and calls, create the advertisements, and decide the daily payout percentages for the Retail Profit Pool.
  3. Investor funds paid are pooled and comingled in a handful of financial institutions. Investor funds also are commingled with ZeekRewards and the penny auction website’s overall revenues from all company operations.
  4. Qualified Affiliates earn Profit Points by either (a) selling penny auction bid packages directly to retail customers (“Retail Bids”), or (b) purchasing “VIP Bids” and giving them away as samples to retail customers or to other personally-sponsored affiliates.
  5. Most affiliates opt to simply purchase VIP Bids (up to a maximum $10,000 investment) and give them away as samples in order to earn Profit Points. Even then, affiliates need not exert any efforts in giving away the VIP Bids they purchase because Defendants have created automated programs, including the “Customer Co-Op” and the “5CC” programs, that generate or have generated purported customers to whom the bids can be given automatically without any further effort on the affiliates’ part.
  6. Earning daily dividends also requires that affiliates place one free internet advertisement daily for the company, but that exercise requires little or no effort. Affiliates may merely copy and paste free ads – created by Defendants without input from affiliates – from a company-sponsored program, which the ZeekRewards website boasts should take no more than five minutes per day. Affiliates also may employ a third-party program to generate ads automatically for them; affiliates must simply verify that they’ve placed the ad by submitting an internet link to ZeekRewards. Placing more or better ads does not enhance an individual’s share of profits.
  7. Qualified Affiliates are paid their share of net profits from the Retail Profit Pool in the form of daily “awards” or dividends on accumulated Profit Points, which function like shares of stock.
  8. The size of the each Qualified Affiliate’s daily award is dependent solely on how many Profit Points that investor has accumulated, and is not based on rendering any significant service to ZeekRewards. Thus, buying and giving away more VIP Bids earns greater Profit Points, hence a larger daily profit share award, without any additional effort required.
  9. Qualified Affiliates have the option to receive their daily “award” that typically has approximated 1.5% per day as: (i) a cash payment; (ii) additional Profit Points ; or (iii) a combination of both.
  10. ZeekRewards encourages Qualified Affiliates to convert at least 80% of their daily award as additional Profit Points. Most Qualified Affiliates follow this suggested approach.
  11. The daily award has a compounding effect for those Qualified Affiliates who elect to receive the daily award as new Profit Points rather than cash.
  12. As a result of the compounding effect, Qualified Affiliates now have nearly 3 billion Profit Points outstanding. Based on the ZeekRewards current outstanding Profit Point balance, the company would be obligated to pay out approximately $45 million per day if all Qualified Affiliates elected to receive their daily award in cash.
  13. Qualified Affiliates have no role in ZeekRewards’ operations. The Defendants alone created, update and operate the websites, handle all payments, manage the bank accounts and payment service providers, manage affiliate and customer accounts, oversee and disburse all bids, operate the auctions, manage the Customer Co-Op, manage the 5CC program, create all advertisements, sponsor recruiting videos and calls, create the advertisements, and decide the daily payout percentages for the Retail Profit Pool.
  14. Investor funds paid in the form of subscription payments and purchases of VIP Bids are pooled and commingled in a handful of financial institutions. Investor funds also are commingled with ZeekRewards and the penny auction website’s overall revenues from all company operations.

2. THE MATRIX

  1. ZeekRewards also employs a pyramid “Matrix” to reward its investors for recruiting others to join the scheme. The company places each newly recruited affiliate into a “2×5 forced-fill matrix,” which is a multi-level marketing pyramid with 63 positions that pools new investors’ money and pays a bonus to affiliates for every “downline” investor within each affiliate’s personal matrix.
  2. Affiliates that have (i) enrolled in a monthly subscription plan requiring payments of $10, $50, or $99 per month; and (ii) recruited at least two

other “Preferred Customers” (i.e., investors who have likewise enrolled in a monthly subscription plan) qualify to earn bonuses through the Matrix.

  1. Once qualified, an affiliate earns bonuses and commissions for every paid subscription within her downline 2×5 pyramid, whether or not she personally recruited everyone within the matrix. Furthermore, affiliates are rewarded merely for recruiting new investors without regard to any efforts by the affiliates to sell bids or otherwise support the retail businesses.
  2. The Defendants, not the investors, created, update, and operate the websites, handle all payments, manage the bank accounts and payment service providers, manage affiliate and customer accounts, create all advertisements, sponsor recruiting videos and calls, sponsor training videos and calls, and track and determine all Matrix bonus payments.
  3. Investor funds paid in the form of subscription payments are pooled and commingled in a handful of financial institutions along with all of Rex Venture’s other revenues.
  4. Investors’ Matrix bonuses and the Defendants’ profits are both derived from the same source: the overall revenues generated from new investors to the ZeekRewards program and the penny auction website.

 

DEFENDANTS’ OPERATION OF A FRAUDULENT PONZI AND PYRAMID SCHEME

  1. Defendants represent that through the Retail Profit Pool they will pay investors, or Qualified Affiliates, “up to 50%” of the company’s daily net profits in the form of daily profit share awards.
  2. Burks is solely responsible for determining the amount of “net profits” to share in the Retail Profit Pool.
  3. Defendants represent that daily awards are calculated by dividing “up to 50%” of daily net profits by the number of Profit Points outstanding among all Qualified Affiliates. This calculation results in a daily dividend paid to each Qualified Affiliate that consistently has averaged approximately 1.5% per day.
  4. In fact, the dividend bears no relation to the company’s net profits. Instead, Burks unilaterally and arbitrarily determines the daily dividend rate so that it averages approximately 1.5% per day, giving investors the false impression that the business is profitable.
  5. Despite encouraging affiliates to purchase and give away VIP Bids to promote and drive traffic to the Zeekler penny auction website, Defendants fail to disclose that almost none of the VIP Bids given away by Qualified investors are actually used on the Zeekler penny auction website. Of approximately 10 billion VIP Bids purchased by or awarded to investors, less than one-quarter of one percent have been actually used in auctions on the Zeekler penny auction website. Thus, the VIP Bids do little or nothing to actually promote the retail business.
  1. Moreover, Defendants fail to disclose that more than 90% of all revenues (and hence net profits) are derived from new investor deposits (in the form of VIP Bid purchases and subscription fees) rather than actual retail revenues.
  2. Defendants also fail to disclose that without new investor deposits (in the form of VIP Bid purchases and subscription fees), revenues would dwindle substantially as less than 10% of daily revenues come from actual retail sales, and the scheme would likely collapse immediately.
  3. Based on the average 1.5% daily dividend on 3 billion Profit Points outstanding, ZeekRewards would owe nearly $45 million per day in profit share awards to investors – ZeekRewards Qualified Affiliates – if investors requested cash rewards instead of points. The company’s actual daily revenues, which in July 2012 averaged approximately $5 million per day, cannot support the daily awards that have been consistently been “paid” or awarded at an average of approximately 1.5% per day.
  4. Defendants fail to disclose to investors that the company would quickly become insolvent if more Qualified Affiliates elected to take daily awards in cash from the Retail Profit Pool rather than converting their awards into ever-increasing accumulated Profit Points.
  5. Defendants also fail to inform investors of the substantial risk that the Matrix is prone to collapse if the promoters are unable to recruit ever-increasing numbers of paid affiliates into the Matrix pyramid, because without new investors there will be no source of revenue to pay existing participants in the scheme.
  6. Although to date ZeekRewards has paid out nearly $375 million to Qualified Affiliates through the Retail Profit Pool and the Matrix, the company has only approximately $225 million in deposits, which is insufficient to satisfy future awards based on outstanding Profit Points and Matrix commissions and bonuses.

RISK OF FURTHER DISSIPATION OF INVESTOR FUNDS

  1. ZeekRewards’ current investor payouts are approaching, and may soon exceed, total incoming revenue. In July 2012, total revenue for ZeekRewards was approximately $162 million, while total investor cash pay-outs were approximately $160 million. If more Qualified Affiliates in the Retail Profit Pool elect to receive cash payouts for daily awards rather than reinvestment into more VIP Points, ZeekRewards’ cash outflows would eventually exceed total revenue.
  2. Burks has withdrawn approximately $11 million while operating Rex Venture and ZeekRewards, of which approximately $4 million remains in his possession, custody or control.
  3. Burks distributed approximately $1 million of the funds garnered from ZeekRewards to family members.
    1. Defendant Rex Venture currently hold approximately $225 million in investor funds in approximately 15 financial institutions. These funds are in danger of rapid depletion.
    2. Approximately $40 million of those investor funds are held in the accounts of online payment service providers, of which approximately $30 million are held outside the United States. The vast majority of these funds are being held by the payment processors as reserves against potential credit card “charge-backs” (i.e., claims for refunds for transactions involving fraud).
    3. The Retail Profit Pool’s viability hinges on investors continuing to accept daily rewards in points instead of cash. With approximately 3 billion VIP Points outstanding in the Retail Profit Pool, if Defendants continue to pay daily awards at their historical average rate of approximately 1.5%, and investors seek cash awards instead of points, investor claims for cash withdrawals could increase to approximately $45 million per day. With only approximately $225 million on hand, the company would quickly be rendered insolvent.

 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

UNREGISTERED OFFER AND SALE OF SECURITIES

Violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act

  1. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
  2. Defendants, by engaging in the conduct described above, directly or indirectly, made use of means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails, to offer to sell or to sell securities, or to carry or cause such securities to be carried through the mails or in interstate commerce for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale.
  3. No registration statement has been filed with the Commission or has been in effect with respect to any of the offerings or sales alleged herein.
  4. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)].

 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FRAUD IN THE OFFER OR SALE OF SECURITIES

Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act

  1. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
  2. Defendants, and each of them, by engaging in the conduct described above, directly or indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities by the use of means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails:
    1. with scienter, employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud;
    2. obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of a material fact or by omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or
  1. engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.
  2. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)].

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF SECURITIES

Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder

  1. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 64 above.
  2. Defendants, and each of them, by engaging in the conduct described above, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the mails, or of the facilities of a national securities exchange, with scienter:
  1. employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud;
  2. made untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or
  3. engaged in acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons.

68. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission respectfully requests that the Court:

I.

Issue findings of fact and conclusions of law that Defendants committed the alleged violations described hereinabove.

 

II.

Issue judgments, in a form consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d), permanently enjoining Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive actual notice of the judgment by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from violating, directly or indirectly, Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c), and 77q(a)], and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].

  1. III.                        

Issue, in a form consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, as to all Defendants, a permanent injunction freezing the assets of Rex Venture and any entity affiliated with it, directing that all financial or depository institutions comply with the Court’s Order, appointing a temporary receiver over the assets of Rex Venture, prohibiting each of the Defendants from destroying documents, requiring accountings from each of the Defendants, and ordering expedited discovery.

  1. IV.  

Order that Defendants, and any employees or agents of Rex Venture, be restrained and enjoined from destroying, removing, mutilating, altering, concealing, or disposing of, in any manner, any of their books, records and

 

documents relating to the matters set forth in the Complaint, or the books, records and documents of any entities under their control, until further order of the Court.

  1. IV.     

Order Rex Venture to disgorge all ill-gotten gains, including prejudgment interest, resulting from the illegal acts or courses of conduct alleged in this Complaint.

  1. V.    

Order Burks to pay $4 million in civil penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)].

  1. VI.     

Retain jurisdiction of this action in accordance with the principles of equity and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to implement and carry out the terms of all orders and decrees that may be entered, or to entertain any suitable application or motion for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this Court.

  1. VII.  Grant such other and further relief as this Court may determine to be just and necessary.

Dated: August __, 2012                                Respectfully submitted,

 

John J. Bowers (NC Bar No. 23950) Stephen L. Cohen

J. Lee Buck, II

Brian M. Privor

Alfred C. Tierney

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20549-xxxx

Telephone: (202) 551-4645 (Bowers) Facsimile: (202) xxx-xxxx

Email: BowersJ@sec.gov

Attorney for Plaintiff

Securities and Exchange Commission

The PDF is available by clicking HERE.

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.

]]>
And the Leaves that are Green Turn to Brown – MLM Penny Auctions http://mlmlegal.com/MLMBlog/and-the-leaves-that-are-green-turn-to-brown-mlm-penny-auctions/ Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:44:09 +0000 http://mlmlegal.com/MLMBlog/?p=218 © Jeffrey Babener 2012 And the leaves that are green turn to brown And they wither in the wind And they crumble in your hands….   – Simon and Garfunkel The recent SEC prosecution and demise of MLM penny auction … Continue reading

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.

]]>
© Jeffrey Babener 2012

And the leaves that are green turn to brown

And they wither in the wind

And they crumble in your hands….

  – Simon and Garfunkel

The recent SEC prosecution and demise of MLM penny auction business, Zeek Rewards, followed by dramatic changes in other copycat MLM penny auction programs, is the latest in a cycle that too often hits the MLM/Network Marketing/Direct Selling industry.

See the SEC complaint against ZeekRewards. [PDF] Or, read the FULL TEXT online.

In general, the scenarios of pyramid schemes have roots going back more than 40 years to Dare to Be Great, a program in which individuals were invited to pay $5,000 to attend training seminars, where they were trained to go find others to pay $5,000 to attend the training seminars, and so on. In recent years, modern day pyramid versions of Dare To Be Great are merely variations of the same thing. In the cycle, which often lasts 12 to 24 months, reaching a crescendo in the last 6 months prior to shut down, individuals are hyped to pay large sums of money for worthless products or services, overpriced products or services, or even “air,” intangible rights, licenses, or online service packages. Huge commissions are paid for finding others to do the same. Companies camouflage the pyramid schemes, claiming to be legitimate network marketing companies. Sometimes they “drop” names of so called industry experts, pundits, leaders, or even attorneys, who seem to be complicit in allowing their association to create a veneer of legitimacy.

In the excitement of the “quick money,” prospects “buy into” the illusion… to a point that, when the pyramid collapses or is shut down by an AG, FTC or SEC, they are not sure whether their anger should be directed toward the promoters of the pyramid, and a top cadre of “pied piper,” “heavy hitters” and “industry celebrity cheerleaders with financial interests,” or whether they should accept the promoters defense that the demise is the result of overzealous government regulators.

Unfortunately, the “rationalization” is a delusion, and surprisingly, many individuals, so called MLM Junkies, who live at the periphery of the legitimate direct selling industry, are too quickly pulled in to the next “great opportunity,” and unfortunately, they bring with them many honest, hard working networkers who are caught up in the hysteria. Legitimate companies find some of their best talent lured away – momentarily – until the collapse of the pyramid schemes, hoping that the next scam will not come along for a while.

But they keep coming and the cheerleaders keep cheering. They follow in the recent tradition of Gold Unlimited, SkyBiz, Equinox, Renaissance the Tax People, and most recently the onslaught of the MLM penny auction programs. And in the end, human greed for the quick money may be the answer, or as Shakespeare explained  in Julius Caesar, the fault Dear Brutus in is not the stars, but in ourselves.

Although Zeek Rewards was closed precipitously by SEC enforcement action and consent settlement, legal history will only be written and adjudicated by the courts as to whether the program should take its place in the pantheon of other notorious programs. That analysis is not the function or purpose of this article.

Apart from some potential lottery issues, can a MLM penny auction service be properly marketed through MLM/network marketing? Yes.

However, the revenue stream for payment of commissions should derive from bid sales to real retail customers, who in turn use the bids. On the other hand, a program fueled by reps, who pay $10,000 for so called sample or giveaway bids, and recruit other reps to do the same, from which the commission pool is paid, is really not the marketing of a service. Rather, it is payment into a pyramid scheme. Ponzi and Pyramid schemes are, by case law recognition, viewed as unregistered passive investment securities offerings that carry deserved civil and criminal penalties for active promoters, whether they are company organizers or merely conflicted cheerleader media publishers with financial interests.

Such schemes really have nothing to do with network marketing, MLM or direct selling. Hiding behind terms of legitimacy is a great disservice to a global direct selling industry that markets in excess of $150 billion in real products and services through 90 million plus direct sellers. Such programs taint the recruiting environment and siphon finance and talent from “real” direct selling companies. In an era when NY Stock Exchange companies, such as Herbalife and NuSkin, face short seller challenges in explaining the legitimate network marketing model, scams and schemes that parade as network marketing merely confuse global markets as to the legality of legitimate network marketing companies. Hiding such schemes behind terms like “freedom,” “entrepreneurial spirit,” “the American dream,” or “free market capitalism” is an unfortunate high jacking of a truly major indigenous American business marketing model.

Unfortunately, too many MLM penny auction models may fit the illegitimacy tests:

  1. Pyramid: Large upfront cash investments by distributors, who realistically pay for the right to recruit others to do the same with a hope and prayer to make money off the subsequent recruits.
  2. Ponzi: Payment of promised investment rewards to old investors with money from new investors.
  3. Securities: Inducing passive investments with the expectation of return arising from the managerial efforts of the promoter or third parties. In addition, pyramids and Ponzi schemes, by definition, are also securities.

In the end, prospects should understand that true network marketing opportunities involve real products and services, real customers, and hard work. Scams and schemes and promises of something for nothing fit the scenario of if its too good to be true

Look for further follow up analysis of MLM penny auctions and other defunct programs at www.mlmlegal.com.

Click here to view current headlines regarding ZeekRewards and links to additional articles on how to identify pyramid schemes.

Jeffrey A. Babener, of Portland, Oregon, is the principal attorney in the law firm of Babener & Associates. For more than 25 years, he has advised leading U.S. and foreign companies in the direct selling industry, including many members of the Direct Selling Association. He has lectured and published extensively on direct selling and many of his writings will be found at www.mlmlegal.com, of which he is Editor.  He is a graduate of the University of Southern California Law School, where he was an editor of the USC Law Review.

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.

]]>
Stock Plunge on Internal Consumption: Whose Fault? http://mlmlegal.com/MLMBlog/stock-plunge-on-internal-consumption-whose-fault/ Tue, 29 May 2012 18:52:41 +0000 http://mlmlegal.com/MLMBlog/?p=110 Six months before the famous  Pershing/Ackman December, 2012 $1 Herbalife billion short and conference/web assault sent Herbalife stock into a roller coaster trajectory, industry and legal expert, Jeffrey Babener of Babener & Associates, challenged the industry to wake up and … Continue reading

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.

]]>
Six months before the famous  Pershing/Ackman December, 2012 $1 Herbalife billion short and conference/web assault sent Herbalife stock into a roller coaster trajectory, industry and legal expert, Jeffrey Babener of Babener & Associates, challenged the industry to wake up and rise to “set” the conversation on the “personal use/internal consumption” issue:

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars…but in ourselves….Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

It is shame that, in one day, in May 2012, leading direct selling companies would see their stock and capitalization value shrink by billions of dollars.  And, all over a rather simple and reasonable investor question like, “what percentage of product is consumed personally by MLM distributors as opposed to resold to non-participants?”

Unfortunately, with some sound groundwork over the last 15 years, it is a question that need not have been asked….or at least, one that would not have provoked a tsunami of financial world discussion and billion dollar downturns in the stock market.

Although speculative “short sellers” played an undeniable role, this situation is radically different than the challenge posed by criminally convicted Barry Minkow, who negatively impacted stocks by attacking companies with false and misleading information.

In fact, the question about the destination of MLM products is a perfectly legitimate question in the absence of an uneducated marketplace; the stock market’s reaction to such a question is perhaps more reflective of the vacuum of leadership on the personal use/internal consumption issue that should have been undertaken by the industry 15 years ago, when the issue surfaced with an errant comment, criticizing personal use, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the 1996 Omnitrition case.

At that time, it was suggested that a timid industry response would see escalation of the personal use issue to federal and state court decisions, class actions, adverse U.S. and foreign press, adoption of adverse rules by foreign regulators, etc. In a series of articles over the next 15 years, the direct selling industry was urged to “get bold” and seek remedial federal legislation or administrative rule making to legitimize personal use/internal consumption.

See 15 years (1996-2012) of advocacy on this precise topic in the law library of www.mlmlegal.com

The Personal Use/ internal Consumption Issue

http://www.mlmlegal.com/powerindex.html

·         Proposed New Federal MLM Statute: Personal Use OK http://www.mlmlegal.com/proposed1220.html

·         Industry Applauds New Montana Legislationhttp://www.mlmlegal.com/montana.html

·         FTC v. Direct Sellers – The Snail That Got Mugged http://www.mlmlegal.com/snail.html

·         FTC v. Equinox http://www.mlmlegal.com/equinox.html

·         FTC v. Futurenet http://www.mlmlegal.com/futurenet.html

·         FTC v. JewelWay – New Concerns for the Industry http://www.mlmlegal.com/jewelway.html

·         The AuQuest Case – A Wake-Up Call to the Industry http://www.mlmlegal.com/auquest.html  

·         The Omnitrition Appeal – An Industry Issue http://www.mlmlegal.com/omni.html

·         Personal Use – A Call to Action http://www.mlmlegal.com/personal.html

·         FTC vs. BurnLounge: Lessons Learned for MLM/Direct Selling   www.mlmlegal.com/burnlounge.html

And over the 15 years, the industry missed multiple opportunities to seize the opportunity to address the issue by promoting federal legislation or federal administrative rulemaking that might avert a repeating saga. Rather it “kicked the can down the road.”  In so doing, it may have missed the window of opportunity of a favorable political climate to achieve this result.

Instead, the issue was addressed “at the edges,” albeit, with some very helpful changes to several state pyramid and multilevel statutes. But, the big picture and “game changer” at the federal level was missed completely.

1.The industry started and then abandoned proposed remedial federal legislation in 2003. http://www.mlmlegal.com/HR1220.html
2.  A favorable FTC Staff advisory opinion on “personal use” was received in 2004, but, inexplicably not publicized  nor utilized for the public discourse. See the actual document produced pursuant to FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)  request at: http://www.mlmlegal.com/ftcstaffadvisory.html
3. Notwithstanding the absence of “personal use” criticism by the FTC vs. BurnLounge trial court, the industry missed its timely opportunity to object to inconsistent and errant language in the 2012 Final Order, which actually provided that “sale of products or services to ultimate users” does not include sales to other participants or recruits or to the participants’ own accounts.” As with the fallout of Omnitrition, these few “errant” words could be devastating to the industry in the future, even if the industry’s position is that the language should be limited to BurnLounge.
See: · FTC vs. BurnLounge: Lessons Learned for MLM/Direct Selling    www.mlmlegal.com/burnlounge.html

In all these situations, the industry missed a big opportunity to retake ownership of the conversation on personal use and internal consumption.

Who will frame the conversation….
In the end, as a result, it was not the industry that framed the discussion on personal use and internal consumption, but rather external events. The industry was “reactive” rather than “pro-active” time after time. And when the “crisis of the day” abated, it became complacent…and seemingly unaware of the ticking time bombs that would surely come its way. The most recent collapse in the markets, occasioned by a simple question on personal use, predictably resulted in hyper reaction including new website defenses on personal use and internal consumption. Again, the industry was not in control of the conversation, but rather reacting to “events.”

And blaming the stock market for “picking” on the direct selling industry is not necessarily a fair criticism in light of the fact that the industry has abdicated its opportunities to educate the public, the markets, legislative and administrative organizations on the direct selling model and that, as recognized by the FTC’s own Staff Advisory Letter, personal use and internal consumption is quite legitimate if product purchases are purchased in reasonable amounts for actual use rather than for the mere purpose of qualifying in a business opportunity, ie. as the BurnLounge court noted the “evil” as “products purchased merely as incidental to the business opportunity.”  In fact, legitimate purchases for personal use are the hallmark of many of the world’s largest direct selling companies.  The problem is that the industry has not done a good job over the last 15 years of explaining to the world that personal use/internal consumption, if done right, is quite legitimate. And thus the recent stock plummet scenario in response to a simple question on personal use.

And this cycle will continue until the industry helps frame the issue to defend “personal use and internal consumption” in federal legislation and federal administrative rule making. Has the window of opportunity passed for reclaiming the conversation.  It is hard to say. However, it is clear, and has been, that since the 1996 Omnitrition case, if there was a number one priority for companies and distributors to urge upon their “trade association,” the issue of personal use and internal consumption legitimacy was “the one.”

Nature abhors a vacuum….

And unfortunately, as they say “nature abhors a vacuum”. Someone is going to “fill it”….the question is “who?”

It is respectfully suggested that the industry fill the vacuum and reclaim the conversation.

Ironically, the industry actually had a running head start, on capturing the dialogue on personal use and internal consumption, from one of the companies heavily affected in the May, 2012 downturn. In fact, it was a head start a full 10 years before Omnitrition even hit the courts. The issue of recognizing personal use is not new. As far back as 1986, the State of California entered into a Stipulated Order with Herbalife that provides good direction on this subject. The Stipulated Order provided:
5(c). The term “retail sale” as used in this Section 5 means a sale at defendants’ product(s) in any of the following situations: (1) to persons who are not part of defendant’s marketing program or distribution system; or, (2) to persons who are not buying to become part of defendants marketing program or distribution system; or, (3) to persons who, although desirous of becoming or who are a part of defendants’ marketing plan or distribution system are buying for their own personal or family use.
Contents of the Order: http://www.mlmlegal.com/herbalifejudgment.html

It is submitted that the following model pyramid language, relating to personal use, might serve as a synthesis of trending state legislation, FTC staff advisory and reasoning set forth in various federal and state court opinions:

Prohibited Marketing Scheme means an illegal pyramid sales scheme, … Ponzi scheme, chain marketing scheme, or other marketing plan or program in which participants pay money or valuable consideration in return for which they obtain the right to receive rewards for recruiting other participants into the program, and those rewards are unrelated to the sale of products or services to ultimate users. Prohibited payment or consideration does not include payment for non-commissionable “not for profit” or “at cost” sales and marketing materials support. For purposes of this definition, “sale of products or services to ultimate users” include sales to participants, in reasonable amounts, for actual personal or family use.

The DSA weighs in…..

To its credit, the DSA (Direct Selling Association) immediately responded to the stock down turn with the following press release on internal consumption. And, for the first time, the organization set up a complete section dedicated to “internal consumption” at its web site at www.dsa.org
Was this reactive as opposed to proactive? Absolutely. Was this a good start at regaining the conversation? Absolutely. Has the political opportunity passed for meaningfully addressing this long term issue? Only time will tell.

Press Release: May 9, 2012
The Direct Selling Association Responds to Questions about the Purchase of Products by Direct Salespeople
As the association representing more than 200 leading firms that manufacture and distribute goods and services sold directly to consumers, the Direct Selling Association (DSA) would like to set the record straight in response to questions raised about the direct selling business.

Unfortunately, even though these questions have been asked and answered many times by the direct selling industry over the years, stock prices of Herbalife and other publicly traded direct selling companies fell as a result of inquiries by hedge fund manager David Einhorn.

First and foremost, the direct selling business model is solid and strong. After falling slightly in the wake of the Great Recession, total industry sales grew nearly one percent in 2010 and are expected to show even stronger gains when 2011 numbers are announced in early June. Most publicly traded companies reported strong earnings and income in 2011.
Nearly 16 million Americans engaged in direct selling in 2011, some as full-time entrepreneurs seeking to build a business and some as part-time representatives hoping to earn a little extra money. Others sign up as representatives simply to purchase products or services for their own use at a discount and never sell to anyone else. Regardless of their income expectations, almost all direct sellers use the products themselves. This is what is known as “internal consumption.”

As the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stated in a January 2004 Staff Advisory Opinion, internal consumption is not considered to indicate impropriety. Instead, “the critical question for the FTC is whether the revenues that primarily support the commissions paid to all participants are generated from purchases of goods and services that are not simply incidental to the purchase of the right to participate in a money-making venture.”

In short, what the FTC watches for — and what the DSA Code of Ethics is designed to protect against — are compensation systems that are funded primarily or exclusively by payments made for the right to recruit other participants. Compensation must primarily be based on the sale of products and services to the ultimate consumer — whether or not that consumer is also a seller of the products.

Unfortunately, direct sellers have been targeted in the past by short sellers who have deliberately injected inaccurate information or rumors into the marketplace with the goal of driving down stock prices for financial gain. In the end, it is the millions of hardworking American direct sellers who suffer the results of these attacks while the perpetrators walk away with millions in profit.

DSA exists to protect and promote the direct selling industry by educating policymakers, the business community and the general public about the nature of the industry and how it works; and ensuring DSA member companies behave ethically in all aspects of their businesses through enforcement of the DSA Code of Ethics.

The direct selling business model has been thriving for more than 100 years. We encourage anyone who wants to learn more about this quintessential American industry to visit our websites at www.dsa.org or www.directselling411.com, or contact us by phone at (202) 452-8866.
SOURCE: Direct Selling Association
Back to the Future….

As the famed economist Milton Friedman noted, “the future is longer than the present.” And as less distinguished, but no less prescient, Marty McFly noted, it is time to get “back to the future.” Proactive rather than reactive is a good strategy. “Kicking the can down the road” is a strategy, but not a winning solution.

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.

]]>
SEC v. Glenn W. Turner http://mlmlegal.com/MLMBlog/sec-v-glenn-w-turner-2/ Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:10:10 +0000 http://mlmlegal.com/updates/?p=25 Case Synopsis: The Court was asked to determine if an injunction was proper because part of the program “Dare to be Great” was found to be a security under federal securities laws. Legal Issue: Is an injunction proper when a … Continue reading

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.

]]>
Case Synopsis: The Court was asked to determine if an injunction was proper because part of the program “Dare to be Great” was found to be a security under federal securities laws.

Legal Issue: Is an injunction proper when a sales program is found to be a security under federal securities laws?

Court Ruling: The Court of Appeals held that the injunction issued by the District court, prohibiting the distribution of the program “Dare to be Great” and freezing the assets of Glenn W. Turner Inc, was proper because the part of the program was a security that had been sold in violation of federal securities laws. The District Court held that Dare’s source of income was from the selling of the program, and people were attracted to it by the opportunity to earn money selling others the opportunity to sell the program. In buying into the system, the investor buys a share of the proceeds of the selling efforts of Dare, but puts in some individual effort in recruiting potential new members to hear the sales pitch. Because of the remedial nature of the securities laws, the statute should be broadly interpreted to include schemes that in substance, if not form, are securities. Dare met this standard, and an injunction was proper to prevent harm to additional investors, and to preserve the assets of the company for possible distribution to those harmed.

Practical Importance to Business of MLM/Direct Sales/Direct Selling/Network Marketing/Party Plan/Multilevel Marketing: Glenn Turner is a landmark case in the MLM/Direct Sales Industry. It established the “functional test” of a security for use in determining if programs, like Dare to be Great, should be regulated under federal securities laws. The functional test looks to whether the program functions like a security, and not simply to the form of the program.

Visit us at www.mlmlegal.com to learn more.

]]>