Saturday, September 15, 2007

Two New Updates!!!!

Saturday, September 15, 2007

As you are likely aware, Quixtar is a big fan of arbitration. A read of Quixtar / Amway's dreaded Rules of Conduct includes the use of arbitrators in case of disputes. Quixtar stated the following on its Alticor Media Blog in regards to a courts decision ordering both parties into arbitration, "Arbitration was fine with us. The facts remain on our side." There seems to be two absolutes in the Quixtar / Amway world, overpriced products and the love of arbitration.So why would Quixtar prefer this method of dispute resolution to that of due process administered by the State and Federal Court systems? The obvious answer is to keep their activities private or secret. They would love to get away with saying what they say, and not have it come back to bite them in the pants later on. They don't want to go on the record in court or better yet in the court of public opinion. In the light of day Quixtar is vulnerable to their own words and beliefs. Let us not forget one galvanizing statement made in the Kent County proceedings, the calling of IBO's "Property of Quixtar.' These are these the things that will destroy their company in the eyes of third party citizens. One other polarizing comment made by Quixtar legal during those same proceedings concerned a written statement by Billy Florence. In the statement Florence said, and I am paraphrasing, "I can not in the presence of my creator continue to go forward with Quixtar." Please forgive me Billy if this is not close enough... but I think you all get the point. Billy made reference to his creator aka GOD to many of us. The Quixtar attorney jumped all over his opportunity to say that Mr. Florence had violated some rule about bringing God into it. I haven't taken the time to look that one up but I find it interesting that a rule like that even exists, especially with this particular company. But irregardless of whether the rule exists or not, how smart was it for Quixtar legal to jump all over that one?As you can see arbitration is a place where Quixtar can hide all its short comings. All their gaffes, and screw ups behind closed doors. They can be as rotten as they want to be and no one will know. As I stated in an earlier post concerning the Grand Rapids case:
Quixtar's last desire is to argue in the the light of day. Instead you hear words like, sealed, and confidential. Make no mistake about it, the 15 martyrs have turned on the lights, and as they do, the cockroaches are running for cover.
Yes Quixtar / Amway is a company desirous of secret, closed door sessions, and sealed final reports. As reports came in from Grand Rapids I couldn't help but laugh at all I heard. Much of it surrounded Quixtar and the IBOAI's demand that Woodward and Brady return any confidential documents to them. Of course none of these secrets were really secrets at all. One supposed secret was that Doug Devos stated that the business was an internal consumption model. That certainly was not a secret to the IBO's I know. There were no secret formulas, in fact there were no secrets at all. Just a bunch of hot air.There are still other things to consider. In this article in FINDLAW
Arbitration v. Litigation In Court: Which To Choose If You Have The Choice

By Edward C. Mengel of White and Williams LLP
Mengel writes:
Your expected witnesses may dictate the choice of a court forum. Courts have the power of subpoena as well as the power to enforce their subpoenas if they are not obeyed (usually by issuing a bench warrant for the arrest of the subpoenaed person). Arbitrators generally have the power to issue subpoenas but probably do not have much authority to back up the subpoenas if they are not obeyed. Thus, if you need crucial witnesses outside of your control in order to present your side of the story, you may wish to choose a court forum where you can compel their attendance (provided that they are located within the territory where the court's subpoenas may issue).
Another consideration is that in a court forum most issues can be determined by a jury at the request of either party. One must consider, in choosing a forum, whether it would be beneficial for the case to be decided by a jury. If your case is one where you feel strongly that a jury would not be beneficial to your case, you definitely want to stick to the arbitration forum where a jury is out of the question.
Given the very sensitive nature of this case I could see again why Quixtar would like to hide in the shroud of arbitration. There is very likely going to be subpoenaed documents and or persons in this case. Will Quixtar comply with an arbitrator who has no authority to enforce the request?Yet another issue is that the use of an arbitrator denies Woodward the right to a jury trial. This is a very important point. This is something specifically requested in the Woodward suit against Quixtar. With a jury you are getting a group of people to come to decision instead of one person who may have his or her own biases. A jury should be preferable to both sides. My biggest guess is Quixtar / Amway's reason for choosing arbitration over a jury is that they would actually have to put their marketing research up for all to see. What I mean is Amway and its incredible name recognition may not be such a good thing for them.Let us not forget what Woodward and company are asking for. Not some huge dollar figure so common in today's litigious society. No, not that, Woodward doesn't ask for ANY money. Just a choice for IBO's to stay or leave the Quixtar world, and to not be bound by a non compete clause that many of those who hoped to be covered by this suit never signed to begin with. Remember this was added without anyone knowing about 3 years ago. So as we continue down this road remember, one of the parties looks to have his day in court for all the world to see and to seek truth in the daylight from a jury of his peers. The other side looks to hide in the shadows of arbitration and dance among words like confidential, and secret and sealed.
Posted by The IBO Rebellion at 4:29 AM 1 comments

Here is the promised post regarding the California case. I will do my best to report what I understand. As you are aware it is rather difficult getting information as everyone is tight lipped.The first item is the class action suit filed by Woodward and company v Quixtar. This action has been filed in a United States Federal Court. A class action suit is simply a lawsuit brought by one party on behalf of a group of individuals all having the same grievance. In this case the class Woodward's legal team is referring to are the IBO's doing business with Quixtar. Before this can happen a class action must be certified by the judge. These decisions are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of (FRCP). Rule 23 covers Class Actions; subsection (c) covers certification and it says:
(c) Determining by Order Whether to Certify a Class Action; Appointing Class Counsel; Notice and Membership in Class; Judgment; Multiple Classes and Subclasses.(1) (A) When a person sues or is sued as a representative of a class, the court must — at an early practicable time — determine by order whether to certify the action as a class action..(B) An order certifying a class action must define the class and the class claims, issues, or defenses, and must appoint class counsel under Rule 23(g).(C) An order under Rule 23(c)(1) may be altered or amended before final judgment.(2) (A) For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(1) or (2), the court may direct appropriate notice to the class.(B) For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the court must direct to class members the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. The notice must concisely and clearly state in plain, easily understood language:* the nature of the action,* the definition of the class certified,* the class claims, issues, or defenses,* that a class member may enter an appearance through counsel if the member so desires,* that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion, stating when and how members may elect to be excluded, and* the binding effect of a class judgment on class members under Rule 23(c)(3).(3) The judgment in an action maintained as a class action under subdivision (b)(1) or (b)(2), whether or not favorable to the class, shall include and describe those whom the court finds to be members of the class. The judgment in an action maintained as a class action under subdivision (b)(3), whether or not favorable to the class, shall include and specify or describe those to whom the notice provided in subdivision (c)(2) was directed, and who have not requested exclusion, and whom the court finds to be members of the class.(4) When appropriate (A) an action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues, or (B) a class may be divided into subclasses and each subclass treated as a class, and the provisions of this rule shall then be construed and applied accordingly.The next issue, and certainly related to the issue of class, is whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the defendant, in this case Quixtar. There are many issues here but in this case one item is that Quixtar does in fact conduct business in California. I am not a lawyer and I am sure there are many variables here. I can't speak for Quixtar but one would guess since Woodward filed this lawsuit in California he thinks this would be a good place to hold it. Quixtar would probably prefer Grand Rapids, MI but who knows.There is also the possibility of arbitration. This is a binding decision of an arbitrator and is not considered a court. The Construction Sciences Resource Foundation describes arbitration as the following:
Arbitration, however, is basically Litigation Light, and like some of the "light" products for dietary consumption, arbitration too often does not live up to its touting. The primary benefit advanced in support of arbitration is also its chief drawback: it is not litigation.While most arbitrators as well as most judges genuinely seek to do justice, I believe judges are more likely to decide a case on its merits, separated from prejudice, sympathy, personal orientation, bias, and other extraneous considerations,
It is obvious that Woodward would like to keep the matter in court as opposed to arbitration. Quixtar, if unable to head back to Grand Rapids, would prefer arbitration over the courts.I may be missing something but I don't think so. These were the issues before the court on Wednesday September 12th. On this day the judge heard some arguments, made no decision, and requested a legal brief from Quixtar. The judge then scheduled a hearing for Wednesday September 19th. We will have to wait and see how far things get on this coming Wednesday. I hope I have provided some accurate and helpful information. Stay tuned.
Posted by The IBO Rebellion at 2:54 AM 3 comments

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

GOOOOOOOOOOO TEAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Pyramid Scheme Lawsuit Against Quixtar Will ContinueFederal Judge adjourns case until September 19thLos Angeles, California -United States District Court Judge Gary Feess will continue to hear arguments on September 19th in a lawsuit brought by top ex-Quixtar Independent Business Owners (IBOs) against Quixtar alleging that the company is an illegal pyramid scheme. Quixtar is a sister company of Amway Corporation based in Ada, Michigan. Amway was started by Jay Van Andel and Richard DeVos and is still controlled by their families.A nationwide class of IBOs filed a lawsuit (Woodward et al. v. Quixtar,Inc. CV 07-5194 GAF) against Quixtar August 9, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The complaint alleges that Quixtar is operating as an illegal pyramid scheme. The complaint asks the court to find the Quixtar uniform distributor contracts unenforceable as they promote an illegal result and the purpose of entering into the contract has been frustrated by the illegal activities of Quixtar. The plaintiffs in the California case are seeking to be released from their contract."Everyday in court is a big win for the IBOs," said D.J. Poyfair, attorney for Denver-based Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, the firm representing the IBOs. "The more documents and information that becomes public about how Quixtar operate the better it is for my clients.""For the first time in history, the truth about Quixtar is coming out into public view," Poyfair added. "If the Van Andel and DeVos families truly believe in free enterprise they will do the right thing and let my clients go."Documents filed in the case clearly outline the IBO's reasons for filing the lawsuit. The documents state in part:"Quixtar knows its products are priced so high they cannot be sold and yet it continues to recruit distributors in a concerned effort to enrich the founding families at the expense of the rank and file simply trying to earn a living. Quixtar holds itself out as a legitimate, multi-level home-based business opportunity, but in fact operates as an illegal pyramid recruitment scheme. Quixtar leads participants to believe that they can build a viable business retailing Quixtar products; but once the participants sign up and pay their initial investment into the pyramid, it quickly becomes evident that Quixtar's products cannot be retailed because they are hopelessly overpriced. Quixtar no longer makes any pretense of retailing products to consumers outside of Quixtar's network of distributors, but relies entirely on the purchase and internal consumption of products by distributors to fuel its pay plan."
Posted by The IBO Rebellion at 4:05 PM 6 comments

Sunday, September 9, 2007

New Updates

Here is some new updates from the IBO Rebellion blog!!:)

Saturday, September 8, 2007

Breaking news from behind the walls of Alticor / Quixtar. I am getting reports of a big blow up inside company walls. As I always try to do, I am attempting to confirm this with multiple sources. Stay tuned.
Posted by The IBO Rebellion at 10:19 AM 11 comments
Friday, September 7, 2007

Apparently Alticor / Quixtar / Amway doesn't have enough evil doers yet. In case you were wondering what could possibly suck up all that money. As it turns out it isn't only the JAY FACTOR that makes a huge sucking sound. The other sucking sound is Quixtar legal. They continue to suck up resources. Apparently not enough as Alticor is looking for more upstanding LSAT'ers. Here are two postings for MORE attorneys. The two postings below are actual job postings listed on August 13th 2007. They must have realized they were in for a fight after their boneheaded moves on the 9th. We always say live your priorities. Raise prices, lower PV, hire more lawyers!
Job title Corporate Counsel-LitigationAutoReqId2055BRPositions Available1 Department Litigation :7416CompanyAlticor : 800Location/WorksiteMI, AdaType of employment Full Time : FShift1Job description
The Litigation Corporate Counsel staff attorney position will provide support to the litigation practice area, which covers a wide variety of legal subjects including large complex matters. The Litigation attorney will assist with the discovery process, the preparation of court pleadings, and the responses to court orders. The Litigation attorney will interact with internal business clients, attorneys in other practice areas of the Legal Department, outside counsel, and other legal staff to complete assigned work.
Minimum Education/Experience Requirements
Qualified candidate must have a JD degree from an ABA accredited law school and be a member in good standing of the Michigan State bar. Candidate must have 2-4 years experience in the litigation practice area.
Other Requirements
Candidate must display independent judgment, be an effective team member, and work well in a cross-functional environment. Proficiency in written and verbal communications is necessary. Experience with discovery in complex matters is beneficial.

Job title Corporate Tax CounselAutoReqId2203BRPositions Available1DepartmentTax Counsel :7117CompanyAlticor : 800Location/Worksite MI, AdaType of employment Full Time : FShift1Job description
As Corporate Tax Counsel for Alticor, the position advises management on all aspects of Alticor’s global tax matters, engages in complex tax planning and research, supports worldwide tax compliance, assists in the management of domestic and international tax audits and manages the implementation of projects. This position achieves the following important objectives for Alticor: increases Alticor’s cash flow and after tax operating income; reduces Alticor’s effective tax rate; minimizes the risk to Alticor and affiliates of the imposition of additional taxes, penalties and interest; and provides support to Alticor’s international affiliates on all tax and related financial functions. Job functions include: researching complex and specialized international, federal, and state tax issues; developing international and domestic planning ideas that exhibit a high degree of ingenuity and creativity, and which reduce Alticor’s global tax liability; successfully implementing complex tax planning ideas or business transactions and restructuring that involve multiple countries, taxing jurisdictions and internal departments within the corporation; developing favorable return positions through research and analysis of the law and the facts; preparing and reviewing necessary compliance documentation, including forms, schedules and reports; assisting in tax controversy matters; and assisting and advising foreign and domestic affiliates with tax planning, tax audits and any other income, VAT, property, capital or other tax issues.
Minimum Education/Experience Requirements
Bachelor’s degree and J.D. required; license to practice law in a U.S. jurisdiction; CPA and/or LLM in taxation not required but helpful; and 5 to 8 years experience.
Posted by The IBO Rebellion at 11:59 PM 3 comments