EDITOR NOTE: As the Distributors Rights has said: raiding down lines is bad policy unless you get solid permission from all uplines and down lines. Plus that the Wallachs & Emord have a good history of kicking Federal government butts..so Wakay founders and their pink ginger don't have a chance (more on pink ginger later!)
Youngevity International, Corp. (YGYI) Files Suit Against Wakaya Perfection, LLC
Press Release: March 23, 2016
For Immediate Release
Contact: Jonathan W. Emord or Peter A. Arhangelsky (202-466-6937)
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA—On March 23, 2016, Youngevity International, Corp. (YGYI) filed suit against Wakaya Perfection, LLC, a competing direct network marketing enterprise that began operations in 2016 and individuals involved in aiding and abetting Wakaya in the commission of tortious acts against Youngevity. The Youngevity Complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Wakaya intentionally interfered with Youngevity’s existing and prospective business relationships, and converted Youngevity’s proprietary business information for use in developing Wakaya’s nascent business. Wakaya was formed by a small group of former Youngevity distributors and executives who broke from Youngevity in 2015. According to Youngevity’s Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the fledgling Wakaya venture secured products and investors at Youngevity’s expense through improper cross-recruiting practices, deliberate breaches of employment agreements, and targeted efforts encouraging other distributors to breach Youngevity contracts. Youngevity’s Complaint outlines the surreptitious and unlawful conduct by a select number of current and former Youngevity members in furtherance of their competing venture. Copies the Complaint and related pleadings are available upon request.
The matter is presently pending under the following caption: Youngevity International, Corp. v. Todd Smith, et al., No. 3:16-cv-00704-W-JLB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2016).
For more information please visit www.emord.com or contact Jonathan Emord (email@example.com).
FEDERAL COURT KICKS FDA IN TEETH ON THIRD PARTY LITERATURE!
EMORD & ASSOCIATES P.C.
1050 SEVENTEENTH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
PHONE: (202) 466-6937 ● FAX: (202) 466-6938
WEB SITE: www.emord.com
TO: Steve Wallach, American Longevity FROM:Emord & Associates, P.C. RE: Legal Resume Before the FDA DATE:April 18, 2005
Please find below an updated list of matters before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in which American Longevity participated. The pending nature or resolution of each issue is noted. Matters are in reverse chronological order with the currently active matters in each category listed first. Items 1 and 2 under Litigation and item 2 under Petitions were updated in this memo.
Litigation Against the FDA Editor's note: The FDA Won this case, but if you read the red highlights below they lost! Great going for getting the truth out about nutritionals!!!!!!
1.Wallach v. FDA, Case No. 04 CV 0216BTM, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Dr.Wallach and American Longevity, Inc. were co-plaintiffs). Court decision issued March 29, 2005 in favor of the FDA, finding that the restrictions of 21 U.S.C. § 343-2(a) (distribution of scientific literature in connection with the sale of dietary supplements) was not an unconstitutional restriction on speech. However, the Court rejected FDA’s argument that Wallach and American Longevity lacked standing, stating that “the chilling effect on [their] speech here is obvious.” The Court accepted Wallach and American Longevity’s argument that if the statutory exemption is satisfied, FDA cannot use its intended use policy to block the dissemination of scientific literature containing health claims and drug claims. The Court also accepted Wallach and American Longevity’s argument that literature of this kind is not n inherently misleading and any restriction upon it must be evaluated under all prongs of the test for evaluating commercial speech (Central Hudson) but decided that the statute was constitutional under that test. The Court additionally accepted Wallach and American Longevity’s arguments that disclaimers were effective means to satisfy the statutory requirements and rejected FDA’s contrary argument. 2.CSPI v. Thompson, Case No. 03-1962 (RBW), U.S. District Court for D.C.. (Co-Intervenor/Defendant) Special interest groups challenge qualified claims process and application to conventional foods. American Longevity joined others and intervened to defend the right to make qualified health claims consistent with the U.S. Court of Appeals’ decision in Pearson v. Shalala. The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim stating that the groups lacked standing to sue because they lacked an injury and could not point to a food label that was inaccurate or misleading. 3.Whitaker et al v. Thompson, 248 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2002). (Co-Plaintiff) Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction barring FDA suppression of Antioxidants Health Claim. 4.Thompson v. Western States Medical Center, 535 U.S. 357 (2002). (Co-Amicus) U.S. Supreme Court upheld lower courts’ decision that Congress’ ban on the advertising of compounded drugs violated the First Amendment.
Comments Filed To the FDA
1.Comments on FDA’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking’s (ANPR’s) alternatives for regulating qualified health claims in the labeling of conventional human foods and dietary supplement (filed February 20, 2004)(CoCommenters) (Docket No. 2003N-0496. ANPR is tied to the CSPI case listed in previous section. No FDA activity on ANPR. 2.Comments on Task Force for Consumer Health Information for Better Nutrition (Co-Commenter); Docket No. 03N-0069; filed on 7/9/2003; no FDA activity on matter. 3.Reply Comments on First Amendment Issues (Co-Commenter); Docket No. 02N-0209; filed on 10/25/2002; no FDA activity on matter. 4.Comments on First Amendment Issues (Co-Commenter); Docket No. 02N-0209; filed 9/12/2002; no FDA activity on matter. 5.Comments on Guidance on Applying the Structure/Function Rule (Co-Commenter); Docket No. 01D-0058; filed on 5/23/2001; no FDA activity on matter.
Petitions Filed with the FDA
1.Petition for Amended Health Claim: Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Coronary Heart Disease (Co-Petitioner); Docket No. 03Q-0401; filed on 6/23/2003; qualified claim permitted by FDA on 9/8/2004. 2.Petition for the Modification of Disease Connotations 21 C.F.R. § 101.93 to Include Structure/Function Claims with Disclaimers that Eliminate Perceived Disease Connotations (submitted March 16, 2004)(Sole Petitioner). 3.Petition for Health Claims: Lycopene and Tomato-based foods containing Lycopene and Reduction in the Risk of Certain Cancers (Sole Petitioner)(filed 1/21/2004); Docket No.2004Q-0210; FDA decision due on 6/13/2005 (third extension from original due date of December 24, 2004). 4.Petition for Health Claims: Selenium and Reduction in the Risk of Certain Cancers and Selenium and Anticarcinogenic Effects (Sole Petitioner); Docket No. 02P-0457; filed on 7/10/2002; qualified claims approved by FDA on 4/28/2003.
The contents of the MLM WatchDog are editorial in nature
and protected by First Amendment rights.
This site is partially supported by donations from paid subscribers, donations by 3rd partties and donations from America's MLM Consultants
the worlds leading MLM consultants for Network Marketing, Party Plans and MLM
MLM Watchdog(tm) ~ All Rights Reserved