USANA Settlement - From the Court Records
Image via Wikipedia
Some people have a hard time understanding that the USANA did not prove any of its allegations against Minkow.
A reader emailed me this question:
"I've been engaged in a conversation with Len Clements regarding the outcome of the courtcase between USANA and Minkow.
The comments can be found at the below link where I am posting under the name geraldblack1978 and Len is posting under mwave43.
I'm not a lawyer and neither is Len so I was wondering if you
could give me an explanation of the Courts decision.
Did the Court
reach the verdict that Minkow had to remove all of the postings
regarding USANA from his web page and was not allowed to trade in their
stock anymore or was this a decision reached by Minkow and USANA
seperately which is being upheld by the Courts?
I ask because to me it
seems like the Courts are only enforcing what Minkow and USANA arrived
at seperately. Also, I didn't see a verdict of guilty anywhere so I'm
wondering how the Court could have rendered this decision without doing
so.
Regards,
Gerald Black"
On the Yahoo Finance Board, Clements writes:
"Also, while I understand why those on your side of this argument like
to spin the court's dismissal of the other counts besides stock
manipulation as this huge blow to Usana and victory for Minkow, this is
not an accurate portrayal of the facts.
Each count was not of equal
importance, and you must give weight to each count accordingly. The
stock manipulation count was the crux of Usana's case, and was of far
more importance than those counts dismissed.
In the Court Order is
states that "Usana brought this action to enjoin..." such manipulation,
and their "remaining claim is for equitable relief... to enjoin
Defendants from manipulation of Usana's stock." So, the very reason
Usana brought this claim was to stop Minkow from attacking them (to
make their stock drop), and to force him to remove his existing
attacks, and that was the remaining claim.
Furthermore, by this Court
Order (besides the settlement) Usana achieved the identical goal had
the case went forward and they would have won - a Permanent and Final
Injunction forcing Minkow to stop attacking them.
Len
Len
Clements is wrong and Black is right.
The final order came about as the result of a joint stipulation by USANA and Minkow. The USANA Stipulation is a submission from both parties to the Court asking for a Court order in line with how the parties have decided to settle the matter - in part to avoid protracted litigation and expensive legal fees.
There is no finding of facts by the Court.
Importantly, even had USANA won their permanent injunction against Minkow, the scope of the injunction could not have included what Minkow offered - to take down the allegations at his website.
The key to understanding this is note that Tracy Coenen, an architect of some of Minkow's reports, has replicated what was on Minkow's website.
All of the information generated by the FDI on USANA is available and USANA is taking no steps to have those websites shut down - remember that last time they tried it, the Judge spanked them for a cool $150,000 in attorney fees.
Comments
Gerald;
Len is just over the top, but thinks that because he beats up on clear frauds that he isn’t.
Do I think that every network marketing scheme is a fraud? No, but the method of compensation does attract some of the worst vermin.
The DSA could have spared themselves some grief by getting behind the FTC’s new Biz Op rule.
Michael
Posted by: admin
|
August 11, 2008 8:51 PM
Michael,
Thank you very much for looking into the matter. I'm certain Len will be quite angry about this but I'm just trying to find the best possible people for answers. He considers you to be an anti-MLM zealot but I consider him to be a pro-MLM zealot so I have to give this fight over to the person with the better and more appropriate education. That would be you.
Regards,
Gerald Black
Posted by: admin
|
August 11, 2008 8:49 PM