Fortune
Hi-Tech Marketing Hit with Class Action Suit
by
louabbott on September 3, 2010
In
a 42 page document (exclusive of Exhibits) plaintiffs Yvonne Day , Leonard
Haslag , James McCormick and John W. Turner filed a class action law
suit against Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing, Inc. (FHTM), the company, the owners,
officers, some employees and distributor leaders. In blistering language
and drawing on the recent legal actions by the States of Montana and North
Dakota, the suit alleges that FHTM is, and always has been, an “illegal
pyramid” scheme and is a “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization.”
The
video on this page is part of a business presentation of the Fortune Hi Tech
Marketing compensation plan by Presidential Ambassador, Joel McNinch that is
quoted in the lawsuit.
Others
named in the lawsuit are:
Paul
C. Orberson, Jeff Orberson, Thomas A. Mills, David Mills, Billy Stahl, Simon
Davies, Ruel Morton, Todd Rowland, Ashley Rowland, Todd & Ashley, Inc.,
Mike Misenheimer, Steve Jordan, Joel McNinch, Chris Doyle, Ken Brown, Jerry
Brown, Bob Decant, Joanne McMahon, Terry Walker, Sandi Walker, Sherri Winter,
Trey Knight, Kevin Mullins, Scott Aguilar, Molly Aguilar, Nathan Kirby, Dwayne
Brown, Aaron Decker, Susan Frank, Ramiro Armenta, Angelina Armenta, Alexis
Adame, Teresa Adame, Darla DiGrandi, Matt Morse, Matt Barrett and Roberto
Rivera
The
suit seeks to close down the company through injunction relief and recover
treble damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
The
law firm for the class action suit is:
DINSMORE
& SHOHL LLP
1400 PNC Plaza
500 West Jefferson Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
(502) 540-2300
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (502)
540-2300 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
(Telephone)
(502) 585-2207 (Facsimile)
kenyon.meyer@dinslaw.com
Copy
of the full law suit with all of the exhibits can be downloaded here.
Interested
persons can follow the development of the law suit at Justia Dockets and Filings.
Mr.
Jason Baker, who was identified to me at FHTM as general counsel for the company
was not immediately available for comment.
Editor
Opinion
While
I am hardly qualified to judge the merits of the case on solely legal issues
- like whether the suit has been properly filed, whether the jurisdiction
is correct, and whether it is properly framed, etc. – there is little question
in my mind that this presents a huge business challenge for FHTM and
consequently, for all of their distributors. Regardless of the outcome of the
case, with this news capping the other recent legal challenges to the ‘business
opportunity,’ it is bound to become very difficult, if not close to impossible
to effectively recruit. Without new recruits, it would seem doubtful that
the company can stay in business.
At
the heart of the lawsuit is the issue that all networkers need to understand.
For a company to stand legal scrutiny, distributors cannot in any way shape or
form be compensated for recruiting other distributors.
The
law suit makes this allegation that could, in fact, be made against many MLM
companies:
85.
Fortune’s commission structure makes this possible by allowing IRs [Independent
Representatives] to earn
commissions on sales without ever actually selling anything to a customer
outside the Fortune Pyramid. In fact, prospective IRs are told while joining
Fortune that they must purchase certain products to earn their first “customer
points” and therefore allow bonuses to be paid to their sponsors.
While
the FHTM compensation plan ties the payment of commissions and bonuses to
getting customers (at least 3) as measured by “customer points,” in actual
practice, the lawsuit alleges this:
90.
These “active personal customers” need not be actual human beings, let alone
human beings outside of the Fortune Pyramid; rather, a product or service
purchased from Fortune by the IR him or herself qualifies as a “customer” for
purposes of allowing IRs to receive commissions and bonuses. The “customer
points” assigned to each Fortune product or service determine how much of any
given Fortune product or service must be purchased to qualify as one customer.
91.
A “Customer Point Sheet” provided to new IRs explains what products or services
may be purchased to qualify as a new “customer.” As an example, the purchase of
$39.99 of True Essentials products by an IR counts as one “customer” and one
“customer point.”
92.
To obtain the required three customer points, new IRs are encouraged to merely
purchase Fortune products and services themselves, rather than attempt to sell
them to outsiders. Potential IRs are frequently told at recruiting meetings
that they are already paying for the types of products and services
offered by Fortune – e.g., television, Internet service, cellular phone
service,vitamins or travel – so they should simply switch from their current
service provider to a product offered by Fortune.
93.
Although one of the three “customers” purportedly must be “other than his/her
own personal or household account”, Fortune neither tracks nor enforces this
policy, and the policy itself permits this customer to be another IR.
One
of the 12 Critical Success Factors I teach in the MLM The Whole Truth Special Report and Course, is
“#8 – Are there Real Customers?” The test is essentially this: can it be
demonstrated that there exists a significant percentage of customers buying the
company’s products or services who do so even though they are NO part of the
compensation plan?
If
the answer is ‘yes,’ probably any other legal issues that may exist can be
fixed. If the answer is ‘no,’ any other legal manipulations may not
suffice to prevent the company from being attacked as illegal.
I
am actually shocked at how many companies would probably fail that test if the
true numbers were known. And, I am then further concerned as to how many
distributors have no idea that the company is then vulnerable.
It
is also important for network marketers to understand that each of the named
defendants, including company principals, officers, management, and
distributor leaders, are being accused of participating “in a pattern
of racketeering activity,” not just the FHTM corporation:
173.
Each defendant is a “person” for purposes of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962, because
each defendant is, and was at all relevant times, an individual or entity
capable of holding legal or beneficial interest in property.
174.
All of the defendants in this action collectively form an “enterprise” under
RICO, 18U.S.C. § 1962, in that they are a group of individuals and entities
associated in fact, although not a legal entity.
175.
In the alternative, the enterprise consisted of Fortune, which is controlled by
defendants Paul C. Orberson, Jeff Orberson, Thomas A. Mills, David Mills, Billy
Stahl, and Simon Davies.
176.
In the alternative, the Fortune Pyramid is an enterprise, in that it is an
association in fact of all defendants and others which, although not gathered
under any legal entity, operates the illegal pyramid scheme to draw new
investors to Fortune.
177.
The defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity by participating
in a scheme and artifice to defraud in violation of the mail and wire fraud
statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343.
If
this line of argument stands, distributors who plan on succeeding and achieving
top leadership status had better be sure that the company they represent can
stand rigorous legal scrutiny for reasons other than it makes good business
sense – they can end up being sued or even going to jail along with the
principles of the company!