text:
Is Mannatech (of Ben Carson Fame) a Scam?
Happy Halloween everyone. Just like last year's Beachbody article, I've got a tale of a scary MLM to share.*
I was minding my own business on Wednesday night, when I decided to watch the Republican debate. I've only become interested in politics over the last 5 years or so. Before then, I had the opinion that politicians are going to lie, cheat, and philander. I can't stop it, so I might as well focus my energy on what I can control... my businesses.
I've changed my mind though. It's not that I feel that politicians are generally better. It's that I'm taking the George Carlin approach (video with adult language) of looking for someone who is "full of [poop]."
For example, I could write a whole blog post about Jeb Bush's answer on daily fantasy sports. He essentially said that if there's a failure in regulating themselves, someone should do it. (Let's watch a bank robber regulate himself inside a bank vault.) The NFL, but curiously none of the other sports, should move away from daily fantasy sports. Finally his instinct is that it shouldn't be regulated by the federal government. (So essentially, his plan would be to have 50 states have 50 regulations for the same nation-wide entity. That should work out well.)
I'm not here to talk about politics though. This is a bipartisan blog. I could probably find the same things to say about the democrats. However, the democrats weren't on television last night, and in this case the moderator hit on one of my favorite topics, MLM.
You should have seen me when I heard the word "Mannatech." It was a little something like this:
The moderator, Carl Quintilla asked:
"There's a company called Mannatech, a maker of nutritional supplements, with which you had a ten-year relationship. They offered claims that they could cure autism and cancer. They paid $7 million to settle a deceptive-marketing lawsuit in Texas and yet your involvement continued. Why?"
Boom goes the dynamite, right?
The illegal health claims coming from MLM nutrition companies just don't stop. I guess I need to add Mannatech to my list of the dozen MLM companies here: No, Your MLM Health Product Doesn't "Work."
The question appears to be based on this Wall Street Journal article, which unfortunately requires a subscription to read. However, WSJ had a follow-up piece here, which includes a video of Ben Carson saying, "Three years ago I had an endowed chair bestowed upon me. And uh, it requires $2.5 million to do an endowed chair and I'm proud to say that part of that $2.5 million came from Mannatech."
When I read that there's little doubt in my mind that he's a paid spokesperson for the company. Being a paid spokesperson is not terrible in and of itself. However, if there are illegal medical claims like curing autism and cancer surrounding the company, it certainly looks VERY BAD to speak on their behalf.
The Wall Street Journal had another eye-popping quote:
"Mr. Carson has said he has taken Mannatech supplements for more than a decade. Shortly after he started on the supplements, Mr. Carson told Mannatech associates in a 2004 speech now posted on YouTube, some symptoms associated with his prostate cancer 'went away, and I was really quite amazed.'"
It certainly looked a lot worse for Ben Carson to connect Mannatech supplements with "cancer" and being "amazed." This isn't just being a spokesperson, but this sounds like it could be considered an illegal medical claim by the FDA... especially considering that a doctor should know enough to rely on scientific studies instead of Mannatech paying for the words. It also looked like an FTC Endorsement Guideline violation to me. For example, there is this section on Using Testimonials That Don't Reflect the Typical Consumer Experience:
"Testimonials claiming specific results usually will be interpreted to mean that the endorser's experience reflects what others can also expect. Statements like "Results not typical" or "Individual results may vary" won't change that interpretation. That leaves advertisers with two choices:
- Have adequate proof to back up the claim that the results shown in the ad are typical, or
- Clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected performance in the circumstances shown in the ad."
In fairness, these FTC Endorsement Guidelines weren't around when Ben Carson made his testimonial to Mannatech distributors. However, I think these guidelines are simply common sense if you want to be an honest person. In short, if Ben Carson were educated he'd know that he was using the Anecdotal Logical Fallacy:
"You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality."
So going back to my George Carlin bit at the beginning, I this makes me think that either Ben Carson is "[bleeping] stupid" or he's "full of [poop]." I'm going to go with "full of [poop]", because his intelligence has been well-documented.
But it gets worse for Carson. His response to the question contradicted itself. As The Atlantic said, "Presidential candidates frequently stretch the truth. Some of them have made fantastical claims about President Obama's birth certificate, for example, or their ability to construct a giant wall on the Mexican border that Mexico will pay for. But Carson's outright denial seems egregious even by that standard. His relationship with the company is lengthy and well-documented, which makes his response even more bizarre."
So what was Ben Carson's "bizarre" response? It was this:
"Well, it's easy to answer. I didn't have an involvement with them. That is total propaganda and this is what happens in our society. Total propaganda. I did a couple of speeches for them. I did speeches for other people, they were paid speeches. It is absolutely absurd to say that I had any kind of relationship with them. Do I take the product? Yes, I think it's a good product."
So he didn't have an involvement with them. A quick look says the definition of involvement is "participating in something." And I believe giving paid speeches such as a keynote address in Mannatech's 2011 convention (as reported by WSJ) qualifies as involvement and participating in something. How can it be propaganda when he admits to doing it... in the very next two sentences?
Then the very next sentence says that it is absolutely absurd to have a relationship with them... when he reported in the previous two sentences he did.
I won't even get into the last two sentences where he endorses them again saying that he takes the product and it is a good product. Oops, too late, I went there. Still, it is worth noting that Mannatech is a company with many products. We are left to guess which product Ben Carson is referring to.
The National Review has some great analysis of Carson's involvement with Mannatech:
"Mannatech wanted to improve its image and happily paid Carson... to appear at their events and to appear in the company videos. They put his face all over their web site (sometime between my story and now, those images were taken down). Carson's lack of due diligence before working with the company is forgivable. His blatant lying about it now is much harder to forgive."
I'm less forgiving about Carson's lack of due diligence before working with Mannatech. The public's expectation is that a doctor, especially one of some fame, is going to probably vet a company before praising the products.
Let's Look at Mannatech
I'm going to say one more thing about Ben Carson and move on. Why is he denying involvement with Mannatech now? We touched it above. With unapproved FDA claims that it can cure autism and cancer surrounding it, it certainly doesn't look good for the doctor.
With Mannatech choosing to pay $7 million to settle the case it certainly doesn't look very innocent. That settlement included banning founder Samuel Castor from working at the company for 5 years.
Why did Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott hit Castor so harshly? The WSJ quotes, Abbott, "He's a repeat offender."
What were those previous two offenses? I think Dallas News covers them well:
His first run-in came in the late 1980s when Caster's original company, Eagle Shield, sold a radiant barrier described as a breakthrough product that would cut energy costs.
The attorney general got a court order against the company on the grounds that the product was not new and energy savings were dubious. Caster agreed not to make future false statements, according to newspaper reports.
"His second run-in came in 1991 when Caster's company marketed Electracat, a device that repelled insects and other pests with high-frequency vibrations.
One assistant attorney general called the device "a hoax." Caster agreed to stop selling the product and to refrain from making claims about products that were not supported by science. His company, Eagle Shield, paid $125,000 for investigation costs."
It was interesting to note that the Dallas News article cited that Castor created a consulting company to work with Mannatech and thus legally circumvent the 5 year ban. In this capacity he helped introduce a skin cream that could work in 6 to 8 weeks or even two minutes.
Is this where you think the cure for cancer is going to come from? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you.
But what about those health claims. Mannatech, like all MLM companies, probably says that they can't control what their independent distributors do. They may claim to do their best to train them not to make claims, but these are usually window dressing. As Dr. Bowden wrote years ago for the Huffington Post:
"No More Claiming Mona Vie Cures Cancer! Nor, for that matter, AIDS. Nor lupus, GERD, acne, age spots, arthritis, a balding scalp or sagging libido... And lest you think I'm picking on poor MonaVie, the same is true of Xango, Mangosteen, Xocai, Tahitian Noni, and all the other ridiculously overpriced and oversold juices promoted by scientifically illiterate multi-level marketing 'distributors' who repeat these claims with the sincerity and earnestness of a Kucinich volunteer."
MonaVie found that preventing its sales force from making illegal claims is like "herding cats... next to impossible" according to its CEO.
Usually these claims are verbal or spread around internet forums with very little traffic. They typically fly under the radar of the big media. So it's notable that the Wall Street Journal had a page one story on Mannatech's. Unfortunately that article requires a subscription that I don't have to read it.
However, ABC's 20/20 spent 3 months doing a hidden camera investigation which caught numerous illegal medical claims for Mannatech's Ambrotose product. They found two reputable doctors to speak about it. And one said, "There are authentic, scientific studies that have looked at people drinking these kinds of materials. And it doesn't really do anything except increase flatulence." (Yes, it makes you fart.)
The other said, "All of the sugar building blocks that we need in our body are made from the most common foods we eat." And he followed that by saying, there is little or no proof that these sugars, if swallowed, can be absorbed and broken down by the human body.
ABC's 20/20 said that "Mannatech strongly contests these conclusions, citing a large number of studies and research papers that can be found on the Web at www.glycoscience.org. But articles, published in the Fort Worth Star Telegram, have linked some of those studies to a research institute that Mannatech funds." If you have the money, you can create bad science that purposely fools millions into thinking eating chocolate helps you lose weight.
ABC's 20/20 found Mannatech distributors making many health that they weren't allowed to. Mannatech responded that they don't condone or support any such claims. It's similar to what the MonaVie CEO said about herding cats.
My problem with this is that these companies created the system that lets the cats loose. They profit from the cats. They rile up the cats by getting Ben Carson to talk about his prostate cancer and make a connection with the product.
There's an extremely simple solution... eliminate the cats. Mannatech is not required to sell its products through independent distributors.
It's a similar situation to what Napster discovered when its unpaid users were trading music illegally... Napster was responsible. In that case, music companies with a lot of money were able to fix the situation by suing Napster. Their entire business model depended upon it. In this case, only the FTC and state Attorneys General offices care... and they've got a lot of their plates. They aren't going to drop everything and put all their resources behind it like the music companies were willing to do to stop Napster.
Is Mannatech a Pyramid Scheme?
Sounds like an easy question, but it's extremely difficult to answer.
"Not all multilevel marketing plans are legitimate. If the money you make is based on your sales to the public, it may be a legitimate multilevel marketing plan. If the money you make is based on the number of people you recruit and your sales to them, it's not. It's a pyramid scheme. Pyramid schemes are illegal, and the vast majority of participants lose money."
However as NY Times' Joe Nocera points out:
"In one of those letters, he quoted from a 2010 F.T.C. staff report that said that identifying pyramid schemes entails a complex economic analysis." The report added that 'there is no bright line disclosure that would help consumers identify a fraudulent pyramid from a legitimate [multilevel marketing company].' Really?
On Friday afternoon, I called the agency and asked what distinguished an illegal pyramid scheme from a legal direct-selling company. Even having talked to Craig, I found it hard to believe that it wouldn't have some kind of definition.
A few hours later, I received an email from an F.T.C. public relations staffer. 'I'm sorry,' it began, 'but we won't be able to offer you any on (or off) record assistance.'"
So as a consumer or a potential independent distributor, there's no easy way to tell if you are getting in a legal or illegal business. The one thing we do know is that when money is rewarded from people you recruit and sales to them (commonly referred to as a downline) it appears to be a pyramid scheme according the official FTC website.
In this NY Post article on Rodan and Fields we find:
"'Unless a great deal of care is taken by the leadership of a multilevel marketing company, it is possible to allow even a well-intentioned structure to devolve into a pyramid scheme, where payment depends on recruitment,' says Bill Keep, dean of the School of Business at the College of New Jersey."
Yes, Rodan and Fields is a different company, but the point made is about MLM companies in general. I don't get the feeling that Mannatech is taking a great of deal of care to prevent the company from devolving into a pyramid scheme. I just don't get that vibe from their leadership considering the health claims, resulting lawsuits, and positioning of Ben Carson. Let's just say that they don't earn the benefit of the doubt in my eyes.
If you are still confused about whether Mannatech is a pyramid scheme this video may help you:
I particularly like the point around 2:50 with doctor showing a degree and hiding money behind his back. I feel it is fitting with the Ben Carson/Mannatech controversy.
As if all this wasn't enough information on pyramid schemes, I found a site Mannatech Scams that has extensive information on the topic. It caught my attention that 99.4% of people lose money.
I also find it interesting that the points out that Bo Short of other MLM/pyramid schemes such as Amway, Shaklee was allowed to join Mannatech. That's sugar-coating it because they actually appointment him as President of Business and Field Development, North America in May 2013. Of course Bo Short chose to jump to Jeunesse in December 2014. I've covered Jeunesse before and readers of that article may think to question Mannatech's management decisions now.
I know what my opinion is, but I'll leave it to the reader to make their own conclusions based on the disclosed information. And as always, I welcome more information, please use the comments below to add anything that you think is relevant and I'll consider updating this article. (That offer extends to Mannatech corporate as well who can contact me here.)
Mannatech Financials
Mannatech is a publicly traded company. That means we can look up the Mannatech's market capitalization, which is the value of the company. As I write this part of this article on 11/1/2015, the company has a value of $66 million dollars. That's a little more than what Major League Baseball's Alex Rodriquez made in two seasons. Clayton Kershaw's $30+ million dollar salary this year alone could almost buy the entire company at its current valuation.
Does that sound like a company that has a cure to autism or cancer? There are so many companies and people with a spare $30M to invest. Why wouldn't any of those thousands of entities invest that money to own half of a company that cure autism and/or cancer?
Maybe it's because Mannatech is simply selling sugar pills as ABC News claimed in 2007?
Mannatech Conclusion
I'm nearing 3000 words, which is the equivalent of about 6 of my typical articles. I would have loved to carve the time to proofread this, but I've spent a lot of hours on it, and at some point, I have to hit the publish button. Because of the Ben Carson controversy it needs to be timely.
I think you know where I stand on Mannatech.
* I tried to get this out for Halloween, but it didn't happen. As I started to look into Mannatech, the number of red flags that I found overwhelmed me. As for the Beachbody article that I referenced at the beginning, it is 7000 words and took me a week to write it. That's the equivalent of 14 of my regular articles!
Mannatech... and focuses on:
7 Responses to "Is Mannatech (of Ben Carson Fame) a Scam?"
Another great article. It always sets off red flags & sparklers for me when a product is being offered that cures diseases but you can only purchase it through an MLM. The combination of people who are trying to find a way to earn an additional income and people who are sick and desperate for a cure are easy pickings for these companies. The fact that so many of the same scam artists are involved with these companies year after year is both annoying and scary. They bounce from scam to scam without having to suffer any consequences. Ben Carson's connection to Mannatech, whether he wants to acknowledge it or not, speaks either to the stupidity of the man, if he honestly believes these products do what they advertise, or to his lack of character because he was willing to speak on their behalf for a sum of money, knowing that they have no real benefit. I do wonder how long it will take before someone tries to get you to stop talking about it.
I'm glad to hear that you're staying strong. Keep up the good work.
Terri said: "Ben Carson's connection to Mannatech, whether he wants to acknowledge it or not, speaks either to the stupidity of the man, if he honestly believes these products do what they advertise, or to his lack of character because he was willing to speak on their behalf for a sum of money, knowing that they have no real benefit."
I don't think there's even a remote chance that Carson is stupid enough to believe that the products cure or treat diseases. All evidence points to your second supposition as being the correct one – i.e., his lack of character and greed. Where his stupidity really shines though is in his ham-fisted responses to the accusations. First, he denied that he had any material connection to the company, which flies in the face of reality, as he was in fact their paid speaker on multiple occasions over a 10-year period.
Next, he denied that being a paid speaker constituted a material connection, until it was revealed that he had also been featured in Manntech promo videos and on the company's website – so he denied being aware of, or having giving permission, to use his likeness for said videos/website. Then it was revealed that he had previously claimed — on video — that Mannatech had helped finance a $2.5 M endowed chair that he awarded at Johns Hopkins.
Now his campaign people are saying that Mannatech never donated anything towards the endowed chair and that Ol' Doc Ben was merely confused.
To add insult to injury, he made a plug for the products during the debate, doubling down on his previous, but totally unbelievable (and in all likelihood, illegal), claim that his prostate cancer went away as a result of taking Mannatech supplements.
So what we have here is a really, really bad liar — a thoroughly dishonest man — and an inept tactician. If Mannatech did not in fact donate money towards his endowed chair position, then that means he previously lied about it and helped promote the company and its reputation under false pretenses. And if they did in fact make the donation, then he's a liar for trying to cover it up now.
His utter lack of credibility also undermines the veracity of his claim that the products helped to rid him of prostate cancer. Since his handlers are using the defense that he was "confused" about Mannatech being a donor to his endowed chair position, then it's perfectly reasonable to assume that he was also confused about the products curing his cancer. So to keep his story straight, Ben is forced to pick from a limited number of options, all of them bad: (1) that he's an addle-brained coot who can't keep track of his business relationships with nefarious snakeoil pyramid schemes (or the cause for his cancer remission); (2) that he's greedy and completely lacking in judgement for accepting money from and promoting this shady company (which seemed to be the gist of what the CNBC debate moderator was getting at). I'm certain that in reality, he's a barefaced liar who showed extremely bad judgement, both in associating with Mannatech in the first place and then in his inept attempts to explain it away.
The saddest part of all, aside from the fact that some people supporter his candidacy, is that Mannatech's stock is currently at near 5-year highs — up around 25% in the last 5 days alone and up almost 50% for the past 30 days.
It seems that the recent run-up might have had something (or a lot) to do with Carson's plugging the product. I shudder to think that some of his followers might actually believe the BS about his alleged cancer results. Wouldn't it be karmic if his prostate cancer recurred?
Excellent points, Vogel. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt but I suspect that you're much closer to the truth than I am. It also doesn't surprise me that Mannatech is at an all time high. Carson's disciples are probably buying these useless products solely because Carson uses them.
2 things…
…Ben Carson may be a great surgeon. To be one, you have to devote most of the hours you are not asleep to your profession. He is extremely ignorant about many things in life.
…Ben Carson is a liar. As a republican presidential candidate, he has to be. They can not win on their policies.
Recall that this is what Carson said during his keynote speech at a Mannatech convention in 2011:
"Well three years ago I had an endowed chair bestowed upon me and uh, it requires $2.5 million to do an endowed chair and I'm proud to say that part of that $2.5 million came from Mannatech."
Wall Street Journal quoted his campaign team refuting Carson's claim, as follows:
"There was no contribution from Mannatech to Johns Hopkins. It was a legitimate mistake on his part. Confusion. He had been doing some fundraising for the hospital and some other chairs about that time, and he simply got things mixed up."
That excuse is so incredibly lame. How can that possibly be construed as a mix-up? He told an arena filled with company executives and thousands of distributors that Manntech had contributed part of the $2.5 M for his chair at JH — because he was "confused" and "got things mixed up"??? What exactly did he mix up? If they want to go with the mixup excuse instead of just admitting that he had lied, then there are only two possibilities: (1) the mixup was that he had actually meant to say "NONE of that $2.5 million came from Mannatech"; or (2) the mixup was that Mannatech gave him a huge contribution for something else.
And we're also expected to believe that, conveniently, in the 4 years that have elapsed since Carson lied about the donation to thousands of people, no one ever caught the "mixup"? The executives in the arena just nodded their heads and smiled when Carson made the claim in his keynote speech, instead of asking WTF he was talking about?
It's possible that Carson had been referring figuratively to the speaker fees he was collecting from Mannatech, but that would make his denial of having a relationship with the company even more tenuous. Or did Mannatech give him a boatload of money for something else that he's not disclosing.
There's a lot more to this story than meets the eye.
Leave a Reply
Next: Products that were Better 100 Years Ago than They are Today


text:
|Visit their website
|Physical address:
|18165 South Elm Road, Claremore, OK 74019
Recommended by lovegreen - Mar 26, 2014 1:04 PM
They offer seed packages and all are premium quality heirloom seeds. They offer single seeds as well. They have seeds that I never would have thought to buy. Their packages are amazing and their prices are amazing! Check them out!
1) » Endorse The Seed Guy by writing a review
« Work here? Claim this business

subset: commoncrawl


text:
...I have published approximately 30 papers in recognized journals in the areas of Geophysics, Physics and Math. I have been awarded several patents for algorithms related to Geophysics. I just recently retired but would like to tutor students that have a desire to learn.
Sugar Land, TXView Tutor
While attending college for Mechanical Engineering I decided to help my colleagues improve their Math skills, and then I figured that I have a good method of teaching therefore I began tutoring students from different grades and helped them understand math better and achieve better results. The thi...
Houston, TXView Tutor
...I have tutored as part of my spiritual organization in Elkins High school from 2008 - 2010 in Algebra 1 and II and Geometry. I tutored 2 students in my spiritual organization privately from 2008 - 2010 as I followed them to Grade 12 in Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, PreCalculus, Calculus, Phys...
Missouri City, TXView Tutor
...I have been a musician for most of my life. In high school and college, I had to take sight-singing courses, and I always got an A. As a violin and viola player who sight-reads music all the time, sight-singing comes very easily to me, and I enjoy teaching it.
Richmond, TXView Tutor
...I not only have a mastery of the material, but experience in explaining it to students with a variety of learning styles. Algebra I and II are trivial to me. I have taken and tutored a great many mathematics courses, and algebra II is one of the simpler courses that I can tutor.
Houston, TXView Tutor


text: With a stay at Huilo Huilo Nawelpi Lodge in Panguipulli (Puerto Fuy), you'll be convenient to Huilo-Huilo Biological Reserve. This 4-star lodge is within the region of Mocho-Choshuenco Volcano and Lake Pirihueico. Make yourself at home in one of the 12 air-conditioned rooms featuring fireplaces and private spa tubs. Your room comes with a pillowtop bed. Rooms have private balconies. Private bathrooms with separate bathtubs and showers feature jetted bathtubs and rainfall showerheads. Pamper yourself with a visit to the spa, which offers massages, body treatments, and facials. Encounter the local wildlife with a safari, then enjoy recreational amenities including hot springs and an outdoor pool. Additional amenities include ski storage and tour/ticket assistance. Grab a bite to eat at one of the lodge's many dining establishments, which include 3 restaurants and 3 coffee shops/cafés. Relax with a refreshing drink from a poolside bar or one of the 2 bars/lounges. Free self parking is available onsite. Guests can experience the thrill of a safari, and enjoy recreation facilities including hot springs. An indoor pool, an outdoor pool, and a spa tub are on site. Other recreational amenities include a sauna. Children under 13 years old are not allowed in the swimming pool or fitness facility without adult supervision. The recreational activities listed below are available either on site or nearby, fees may apply.


text:
The Discretionary income shown is primarily racked in by the owner and his wife, who are working as the sole mechanic and receptionist, respectively. Imagine filling all 11 bays with mechanics to maximize this business' income potential year round. Also check out the busy street on which the auto shop is located.
Financials (USD)
Asking Price $250,000
Sales $175,858
Profit $75,110
You May Also Like
Full Service Automotive Repair & Maintenance #449024 posted Jul 7, 2016
- United States
- Between $100,000 and $500,000
Business Description: Full service automotive repair and maintenance service center. One of five locations. Staff is composed of ASE certified service managers and technicians. Service writers and techs are constantly on the cutting edge of technology, techniques, and with industry updates such as classes,...
Specialty Trailer & RV Dealership - NW Rockies #455280 posted Oct 5, 2016
- United States
- $214,000
For over fifteen years, this family run Company has offered sales, service and rentals of new and used utility trailers (cargo; flatbed; enclosed), "toy" trailers (snowmobile; boat; ATV), horse trailers, truck toppers, tonneaus and recreational vehicles. As the only area business to offer this unique...
Full Service Automotive #354586 posted Apr 14, 2014
- United States
- $425,000
Auto Repair Business operated by the current owners since 1976 that have created a faithful customer base by providing a wide variety of services. Updates have been made to perform nearly all mechanical repairs. Located in the southeast quarter of Wyoming this is a great opportunity that is certain...
Did you know that social networking is a great way to buy a business? Sign up now and we'll show you how.
Suggested Searches
Disclaimer: MergerNetwork has not independently verified any of the information in this listing and makes no warranty as to its accuracy or completeness.


text:
You have no items in your shopping cart.
Product Info
- Tube Babies Animal Babies 12 piece set includes baby kangaroo, koala bear, 2 tiger cubs, cheetah, elephant, black bear, gorilla, giraffe, panda bear, snow leopard, and zebra.
- Figures measure up to approximately 2 inches long or tall and are made from slightly flexible phthalate-free plastic with painted details.
- Reusable tube has zippered top and handle for stow-and-go fun! Features: Assortment of phthalate-free PVC animals Soft-sided tube features a carrying handle and easy-to-use zipper Tube size is 2.5 x 10.5 x 2.5 inches
Delivery Info
Delivery Info
|Delivery Time
|Please Note


text:
Get an overview of this hotelInn in Cornwallville with free breakfast and restaurant
Situated in Cornwallville, this inn is 2.6 mi (4.1 km) from Zoom Flume and within 9 mi (15 km) of Thunderhart Golf Course and Rainbow Golf Club. Windham Country Club is 11.6 mi (18.6 km) away.
Property Features
This smoke-free inn features a restaurant, an outdoor pool, and a fitness center. Buffet breakfast is free. Other amenities include a bar/lounge, laundry facilities, and express check-in.
Room Amenities
All 70 rooms provide conveniences like refrigerators and microwaves, plus free WiFi and cable TV. Showers and phones are also available to guests.Information missing or incorrect? Tell us!Opens in a new window
Gavin's Irish Country Inn
Hotel Amenities
Hotel Amenities
Gavin's Irish Country Inn features an outdoor pool and a fitness center. The inn offers a restaurant. A bar/lounge is on site where guests can unwind with a drink. Guests can enjoy a complimentary breakfast.
This Cornwallville inn also offers tour/ticket assistance, laundry facilities, and express check-in.
Gavin's Irish Country Inn is a smoke-free property.
- Free breakfast
- Express check-in
- Fitness facilities
- Tours/ticket assistance
- Total number of rooms - 70
- Laundry facilities
- Smoke-free property
- Bar/lounge
- Wedding services
- Restaurant
- Outdoor pool
Family Friendly Amenities
- Family Hotel
- Outdoor pool
- Free Wi-Fi
- Rollaway/extra beds available
- Laundry facilities
- Refrigerator
- Microwave
Available in all rooms: Free WiFi
Room Amenities
- Refrigerator
- Microwave
- Shower only
- Iron/ironing board (on request)
- Rollaway/extra beds available
- Air conditioning
- Phone
- Private bathroom
- Cribs/infant beds (surcharge)
- Cable TV service
- Free WiFi
Where to Eat
A complimentary buffet breakfast is served between 8 AM and 9:30 AM.
Gavin's Irish Country Inn has a restaurant on site.
Nearby Things to Do
Recreational amenities at the inn include an outdoor pool and a fitness center.
- Golfing nearby
Hotel Policies
Check-in time starts at 11 AM
Check-out time is 3 PM
Payment types
Children and extra beds
- Children are welcome.
- Rollaway/extra beds are available.
- Cribs (infant beds) are available for USD 20 per stay.
- Pets not allowed
You need to know
Extra-person charges may apply and vary depending on property policy.
Government-issued photo identification and a credit card or cash deposit are required at check-in for incidental charges.
Special requests are subject to availability upon check-in and may incur additional charges. Special requests cannot be guaranteed.
Optional extras
- Crib (infant bed) fee: USD 20 per stay
Hotel Name
- Gavin's Irish Country
- Gavin's Irish Country East Durham
- Gavin's Irish Country Inn
- Gavin's Irish Country Inn East Durham
- Gavin's Irish Country Inn Cornwallville
- Gavin's Irish Country Cornwallville
- Gavin`s Irish Country Hotel East Durham
- Country Inn East Durham


text:
Not just another eco-label: The science behind MSC
September 15, 2012
The film explores the MSC environmental standards and the measures that fisheries are required to achieve in order to receive MSC certification.
Watch: MSC – Sustainable Seas
MSC certified sustainable seafood, here a package of frozen salmon, sold in MIGROS stores, Switzerland. © WWF-Canon / Elma Okic
More Articles on Freshwater
Freshwater ecosystems face immediate threats 15 ways Canada can help wildlife thrive again Massive plunge in wildlife expected by 2020. Here's why… A creek revived: Students help restore Medway Creek WWF-Canada joins EcoSpark to support citizen science on the… How the hot, dry conditions impact wildlife


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
filed: September 4, 1981.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANYv.UNITED FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LORAN PALMER, BRENDA PALMER, REGINA PALMER AND RYAN PALMER, BY THEIR PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, LORAN AND BRENDA PALMER, AND HARRINGTON & SCHWEERS, P. A. APPEAL OF UNITED FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
No. 758 Pittsburgh, 1980, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, at No. GD 80-5285
David P. Helwig, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Richard S. Dorfzaun, Pittsburgh, for U. S. Fidelity, appellee.
Dennis C. Harrington, Pittsburgh, for Palmer etc., appellees.
Price, Brosky and Montemuro, JJ. Montemuro, J., concurs in the result.
[ 297 Pa. Super. Page 27]
This action stems from an automobile accident which occurred in Pennsylvania in which appellees, the Palmers, sustained injuries. Appellee, U. S. Fidelity and Guaranty Company, (hereinafter U. S. F. & G.) was assigned to administer claims filed by the Palmers pursuant to the assigned claims plan of the Pennsylvania No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act.*fn1 U. S. F. & G. has refused payment to the Palmers because it claims that any benefits owed to them are owed by appellant and it has filed a petition for declaratory judgment seeking such a ruling. The case is before us on appeal from the denial of appellant's preliminary objections to the petition.*fn2 The issue for our determination is whether the lower court has personal jurisdiction over this nonresident insurance company. Appellant argues that there is no statutory basis for an assumption of jurisdiction and that such an assumption would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We disagree and affirm the order of the lower court.
The lower court based its finding of jurisdiction on the terms of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(a)*fn3 (6) which provides:
(a) General rule. -- A tribunal of the Commonwealth may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person (or the personal
[ 297 Pa. Super. Page 28]
representative of a deceased individual who would be subject to jurisdiction under this subsection if not deceased) who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action or other matter arising from such person:
(6)(i) Contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this Commonwealth at the time of contracting. (ii) Being a person who controls, or who is a director, officer, employee or agent of a person who controls, an insurance company incorporated in this Commonwealth or an alien insurer domiciled in this Commonwealth.
An examination of the facts of this case shows that this statute does provide a basis for exercising jurisdiction over appellant.
Appellant, United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, hereinafter United Farm, is a mutual insurance company incorporated in the state of Indiana. It issued an insurance policy to Mr. Palmer, also an Indiana resident, which policy U. S. F. & G. claims is the source of United Farm's liability. The policy contains the following clause:
This policy applies only to accidents, occurrences and loss during the policy period and while the automobile is within the United States of America, its territories or possessions, or Canada, or between ports thereof and is owned, maintained and used for the purposes as set out in the declarations or elsewhere in the policy . . . (Emphasis added.)
The contract itself outlines where the risks which it covers are located and says, in effect, that it covers the risk of accident in, among other places, Pennsylvania.
42 Pa.C.S. 5322(b) provides:
(b) Exercise of full constitutional power over nonresidents. -- In addition to the provision of subsection (a) the jurisdiction of the tribunals of this Commonwealth shall extend to all persons who are not within the scope of section 5301 (relating to persons) to the fullest extent
[ 297 Pa. Super. Page 29]
allowed under the Constitution of the United States and may be based on the most minimum contract with this Commonwealth allowed under the Constitution of the United States.
Referring to a predecessor statute after which the above quoted subsection is patterned, this court wrote, "the addition of the new section . . . is clearly intended to liberalize Pennsylvania's position." Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. v. Cleveland Lumber Company, 228 Pa. Super. 12, 323 A.2d 11 (1974).
The subsection indicates that jurisdiction is conferred to the limits permitted by the United States Constitution. We turn next to the question of whether an exercise of jurisdiction in this case would violate the terms of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Due Process Clause limits the power of a state court to render a valid personal judgment against a nonresident defendant. World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). That clause has been interpreted as mandating that a state may exercise jurisdiction over an absent defendant only if the defendant has certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).
In Hanson v. Denckla, supra, the Supreme Court wrote:
It is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum states, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.
Supra at 253, 78 S.Ct. at 1240.
After discussing the Supreme Court's opinions in Hanson v. Denckla, supra, and McGee v. International Life Insurance Company, 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957) (finding minimum contacts in solicitation and sale of single insurance contract by foreign corporation), our court explained,
[ 297 Pa. Super. Page 30]
These decisions provide only a framework under the broad formula of "fair play and substantial justice" and a determination of whether or not the "minimum contacts" of a foreign corporation with a particular state are sufficient to make the corporation constitutionally amenable to process in that state must inevitably be made on an ad hoc case-by-case basis and not by the application of a mechanical rule.
Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. v. Cleveland Lumber Company, 228 Pa. Super. 12, 323 A.2d 11 (1974).
In Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. v. Cleveland Lumber Company, supra, we applied guidelines to aid in the determination of whether an exercise of jurisdiction is constitutionally permissible. Keeping in mind our opinion in Proctor that such decisions are to be made on an ad hoc basis and not by the application of a mechanical rule, we will apply the guidelines to the present appeal.
The guidelines are as follows:
First, the defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of acting within the forum state thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Hanson v. Denckla, supra. Secondly, the cause of action must arise from defendant's activities within the forum state. See Southern Mach. Co. v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1968); Electric Regulator Corp. v. Sterling Extruder Corp., 280 F.Supp. 550 (D.Conn.1968). Lastly, the acts of the defendant must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over it reasonable. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra; see Southern Mach. Co. v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., supra; see also In-Flight Devices Corp. v. Van Dusen Air, Inc., 466 F.2d 220 (6th Cir. 1972); Kourkene v. American BBR, Inc., 313 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1963).
Id., 228 Pa. Super. at 19, 323 A.2d at 15.
With respect to the first requirement, we explained that:
When obligations entered into by a foreign corporation have a realistic economic impact on the commerce of this
[ 297 Pa. Super. Page 31]
Commonwealth and where the defendant should reasonably have foreseen that the transaction would have consequences in this Commonwealth the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of acting within the Commonwealth.
Id., 228 Pa. Super. at 19, 20, 323 A.2d at 15.
When appellant agreed to insure losses incurred in all states, it assumed an obligation that has an economic impact on those states. As the trial court noted in its opinion, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has an interest in the administration of its no-fault insurance program since improper administration results in higher premiums, which are paid by Pennsylvania residents. Having agreed to insure losses incurred in all states, appellant cannot now be heard to claim that it was unforeseeable that its contract with Mr. Palmer would have consequences in Pennsylvania.
The second of the guidelines is also met here. The cause of action is based on the terms of the insurance contract which provides the connection between appellant and the Commonwealth.
Finally, and we believe most fundamentally, the last of the guidelines is satisfied. The exercise of jurisdiction over this appellant is reasonable. Appellant chose to insure drivers against losses, accidents and occurrences in states other than Indiana. Given this obligation, it is reasonable to require it to be involved in the administration of the claims made by its insured drivers in other states.*fn4
[ 297 Pa. Super. Page 32]
The recent Supreme Court decision in World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation v. Woodson, supra, guides us in our assessment of the reasonableness of an exercise of jurisdiction in this case.
World-Wide Volkswagen was a products liability action brought in Oklahoma against a New York automobile retailer and wholesale distributor to recover for personal injuries sustained in Oklahoma in an automobile purchased by plaintiffs in New York. The Supreme Court held that an exercise of in personam jurisdiction upon them would be unconstitutional since the New York corporations did not have the requisite minimum contacts with Oklahoma. The court explained that although it was foreseeable that a car sold in New York would be driven to other states, "the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum state" is not a sufficient basis for the exercise of jurisdiction. Rather, the court said, critical to a due process analysis is "that the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." Id. 444 U.S. at 297, 100 S.Ct. at 567.
The court explained further.
When a corporation "purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State," Hanson v. Denckla, supra, at 253, 78 S.Ct., at 1240, it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there, and can act to alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation by procuring insurance, passing the expected costs on to customers, or, if the risks are too great, severing its connection with the State.
Id. at 297, 100 S.Ct. at 567.
We find that by reason of the policy it issued to appellees, appellant had clear notice that it was subject to being involved in suits in Pennsylvania. The policy anticipates that the insured and the company will cooperate in litigation. As a driver, Mr. Palmer was subject to suit in any state into which he ventured. His insurer by agreeing to cover his losses incurred while operating his automobile and
[ 297 Pa. Super. Page 33]
by requiring a cooperative effort in litigation was put on notice that it could be involved in litigation in Pennsylvania. The due process requirements have been satisfied in this case.
Order affirmed.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
College of Engineering and Architecture
PO Box 645220
Pullman, WA 99164
United States
Graduate Certificate in Engineering and Technology Management, Masters Degree in Engineering and Technology Management
Format: Online
Financial Aid: No
International Financial Aid: No
Classification: Doctoral/Research University—Extensive
Loans Offered: Loans may be available. To determine eligiblity for federal student aid, students should begin by completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Federal School Code: 003800
Locale: Distant Town
Size & Settings: 3,000-5,999


text:
Home » Clothing and Accessories » Fashion Accessories » ChicNova Affiliate Program
The ChicNova affiliate program allows your web visitors to browse and buy world-class modern women's street fashions at ChicNova.com. The site's mix and match approach gives shoppers the ability to create multiple outfits from its ever-expanding clothing selection.
This affiliate program is optimally suited to trendsetting women who want to keep their wardrobes current with modern trends season after season.
ChicNova Affiliate Program Benefits:
• Commissionable Rompers – Earn commissions on sales made via ChicNova.com
• Dynamic Creative – Highlighting enticing deals on current clothing lines
• Durable Denim – Casual denim apparel available to add an edge to designer looks
How Can This Benefit You?
With plenty of popular new arrivals consistently being added to their inventory, the ChicNova affiliate program is a true beacon for those with a passion for fashion. Whether leading trends among friends or bucking the system and going for unique appeal, they are able to supply women with what they desire to look daring everywhere they go. As they have clothing appropriate for summer and winter, ChicNova.com can ultimately be appealing year-round.
If the Shoe Fits
A fun party dress or playful printed leggings are only the beginning of what shoppers can expect to find again and again at ChicNova.com. They also stock a myriad of stylish shoes, bags, and jewelry to add the proper finishing touches to any look.
Sign up with FlexOffers.com to learn more about the ChicNova affiliate program today!
Promote this program and similar ones on your website today. Register online, it's 100% free to join.
Do you have a business for our publishers to promote? Then become an advertiser today, it's
easy to get started.
Copyright © 2016 FlexOffers.com Affiliate Programs. All rights reserved.


text:
19th September 2011
One of the cooler things in the world of external recorders at the moment is the impending arrival of the Sound Devices Pix recorders. At IBC we got a chance to get our hands on the Pix 220 and 240 recorders and get a feel for one of those most flexible external records around.
You can see a full description of the Pix series capabilities here: https://www.prokit.com/index.php?view=product&product=Sound-Devices-PIX-Recorder
Here are a few of the features we learnt of at IBC:
- Uses the same Pre-Amp as the Sound Devices "7" series audio recorders
- The unit can act as a Timecode Lock-It box
- Built in L-series battery mounts, with power consumption of 15-20w in standby mode (that means 7 hours on standby from 2 x Sony NPF-970 batteries)
- Uses a UDF files structure and therefore has no maximum file size: no more joining of 2-4GB videos chunks.
We expect the Pix recorders to be coming into stock in 3-4 weeks.


text:
The average cost for a Windshield Washer Pump Replacement is between $106 and $136. Labor costs are estimated between $52 and $67 while parts are priced between $54 and $69. Get a personalized estimate based on your location and specific car. Estimate does not include taxes and fees.
Windshield Washer Pump Replacement Cost for Toyota Celica
Windshield Washer Pump Replacement Estimate (National Average)
Validated estimate range for national average.
View Estimate Details
Parts & Labor Breakdown
Labor: $52 - $67
Parts: $54 - $69
Estimate does not include taxes and fees.
Best Practices
When the pump is replaced, the washer lines and nozzles should be cleaned out if plugged, and the nozzles adjusted to spray properly onto the windshield.
Common Symptoms
When a washer pump fails, the windshield washers stop working and you will not hear any noise from the pump when trying to operate the washers.
Common Misdiagnoses
The washer motor is sometimes replaced when problem is actually a defective washer switch, module, wiring, or plugged hoses and/or nozzles. Some systems have check valves that can plug as well. If you hear the pump running when operating the washer system, then the problem is likely something else.
Last step before receiving your estimate:
* Estimate for all Toyota Celica model years. Get a more accurate price by entering in your year.


text:
Various remedy in different IR Problems.
Long term wage settlement with Unions (LTS) and dealing with unions in various issues (Wage Agreement).
Disciplinary action, which found accused in various misconduct as per rules of Standing Order & conduct
Minimum wages act, Payment of wages act and Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970(Reg etc)
Liaison with AKVN for Water and Electricity connection (Indian electricity rules).& Electrical inspection Dept
Liaisoning for DG installation


text:
Best of USA (Start New York City)
Choose a date
Please, select a date to continue
Start your day with a stroll over the historic Brooklyn Bridge, then hit the Lower East Side and take in some immigration history at the Tenement Museum. Grab a gourmet bite to eat at the famous Chelsea Market or opt to channel New Yorks most famous foursome on a Sex and the City tour, then perhaps hit trendy Williamsburg or the East Village to check out some impressive urban street art. Then it's another one for the bucket list - we're heading to the most famous New York landmark, the Empire State Building. With an uninterrupted view of the concrete jungle lit up like a Christmas tree, that's one big tick off the ever growing list.
HELLOOOOO BIG APPLE! Let's get you somewhat more familiar with this place by opening up New York Manhattan. Museum Row includes all the most prestigious NYC galleries and historical museums and you will get to see it all. Shop till you drop on Fifth Avenue or take a spin over this huge city island in a chopper for the best possible view.
The Statue of Liberty is one of the world's most recognisable icons - how many times have you seen her on the TV or in the movies? Well today if you're turn to see her for real, on us of course, and then you are free to roam wonderful New York. Peddle through Central Park, explore Greenwich Village or Soho, have a street vendor make you a hot dog - this place is just so vast and diverse. Foodies could take to the streets for a food cart walking tour, so keeping hungry is essential as you munch your way around the city on foot, or channel your inner Upper West-sider with a Gossip Girl tour. No matter what you choose to do, try and take in as much as possible because there's nothing like seeing NYC for the very first time.
Best of USA (Start New York City)
- ★ 5
- ★ 4
- ★ 3
- ★ 2
- ★ 1
6 reviews
- Tanya
- Booked from Australia
- Traveled July 2014
- 23
- Level 1 Traveller
- 1 Contikis
- 1 Countries
Good but do your homework could do it cheaper
My Contiki was: --
2 July 2014 - 15 July 2014
- Jayme
- Booked from Australia
- Traveled January 2013
- 21
- Level 3 Traveller
- 3 Contikis
- 15 Countries
Awesome Adventure
My Contiki was: Once in a lifetime-Perfect-Dream come true
17 January 2013 - 30 January 2013
- Gillett2
- Booked from Australia
- Traveled July 2012
- Level 2 Traveller
- 2 Contikis
- 2 Countries
Best of USA
- MaddieMiller
- Booked from Australia
- Traveled January 2015
- Level 1 Traveller
- 1 Contikis
- 1 Countries
Interesting first travelling experience but I probably wouldn't Contiki again
My Contiki was: Fast-Exhausting-Fun
14 January 2015 - 27 January 2015
- MariahMac
- Booked from Australia
- Traveled December 2015
- Level 1 Traveller
- 1 Contikis
- 1 Countries
Best of EVERYTHING
- Jay
- Booked from Reviews.ZA
- Traveled September 2012
- 35
- Level 2 Traveller
- 2 Contikis
- 7 Countries
Tour Manager
6 reviews


text:
The latest word from Detroit: The Pistons have announced that they do NOT plan to fire coach Flip Saunders.
Speculation had been mounting this week that Flip might be a man on the outs.
After all, the Pistons ended the season without a championship. This was not the preferred result. The preferred result was, in fact, to win the championship.
In short: This ain't any old team. The Pistons win championships. Sometimes. Ideally, they would have won one this year under Saunders, because that's what they normally do.
About five percent of the time.
Misguided pundits have suggested that the Pistons' demise should be attributed to LeBron James instead of Flip Saunders. Evidently, the King unleashed a stunning performance in the Eastern Conference Finals, of the kind unseen since the days of Michael Jordan.
Or so the argument goes.
If there were any legitimacy to such reasoning, one could easily counter with a simple point: Flip Saunders should have told his team to stop LeBron.
Play tighter defense and keep the kid from scoring—how hard it could it be?
The millions of fans who watched the series identified the problem. Even a basketball novice could have told you that James' piss-your-pants-in-awe heroics were a significant impediment to Detroit's championship dreams.
But Saunders did nothing. He let it happen.
It was like he didn't even know what was going on. He acted like a basketball guru who was witnessing one of the most outstanding athletic performances in a decade.
It's really shameful.
And dare I even mention last season? Dare I speak about his loss to the eventual-champion Miami Heat?
Let's be honest: Flip Saunders has demonstrated a pattern of losing. In fact, in every single season in which Flip Saunders has coached the Pistons, they have failed to win the NBA Championship.
He could coach the team for another thousand years, and if his track record is any indication, the likely outcome would be a loss in the NBA Eastern Conference Finals.
As one who does not enjoy watching losers, I have decided to get rid of my Pistons season tickets and turn my attention to next season's American Idol. With Flip behind the wheel, there is no way this team can win it all. And if they don't win it all, why did I even bother watching the sport to begin with?
I'm a Pistons fan, and when my team fails to win the NBA Championship, I go to bed disappointed.
Thankfully, they have met my expectations one year after another.
Except for the 57 instances in which they haven't.


text:
Warrenpoint Window Cleaning
window cleaning, window cleaners, window cleaning service
I clean shop windows and other small / medium sized businesses. Normally the building can be up to and including 3 storeys / 30ft. Cleaning via water fed pole with a 30ft reach and/or traditional window cleaning using strip washer, squeegee, ladders etc up to 3 floors. Fully insured and follow health and safety practices for my industry.
Print this page
Intensive window cleaning at standard prices leaving your home windows cleaner for longer at no extra cost.
Create your free Hotfrog business profile
Follow Hotfrog on:
Share on:
Hotfrog Small Business Hub


text:
ANKARA: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday launched a bitter attack on NATO ally the United States over its support of Syrian Kurdish groups, saying it was creating a "pool of blood" in the region.
Syed Ammar Alavi - is Lahore (Pakistan) based journalist & writer with 25-year experience in print, wire and broadcast forms of journalism. His major fields of interest are politics, film,tv,sports, climate change and technology


text:
Explore 233 Earrings, Earrings 1830 and more!
Amor & Psyche earrings 1830
An enamel, tourmaline, and gold brooch, circa 1830.
Pelerine, 1830
Red Branch Coral Brooch, 19th century
Cap, 1830
Imperial Roman period Gold Earring with Rock Crystal Bead, c.1st-2nd century A.D.
Gold earring with disc and pendant. Mid Imperial, Roman, 2nd century A.D. (The Metropolitan Museum of Art)
Earrings like these are found throughout the Byzantine world. 6th–7th century


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
June 28, 2007
CONOPCO, INC., PLAINTIFF,v.DINA WEIN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff Conopco Inc. d/b/a Unilever ("Conopco") filed this action in November 2005, alleging that Defendant Dina Wein, various corporate entities she organized, and employees of those entities, including her counsel, Defendant Avraham Moskowitz ("Moskowitz") (collectively, "Defendants"), perpetrated an extensive fraudulent scheme against Plaintiff and numerous other consumer product companies. Specifically, alleging fraud and federal RICO claims, Plaintiff contends that Defendants, through a variety of misrepresentations and sophisticated ruses, obtained Plaintiff's and other companies' products at substantially discounted prices, purportedly to utilize in promotional and sampling programs intended to expand the companies' markets. Plaintiff alleges that, instead, Defendants diverted the products back into the wholesale market, causing economic harm to Plaintiff and the other victim companies, while unjustly enriching Defendants.
The action was referred to this Court for general pretrial supervision and, accordingly, the Court has addressed numerous discovery disputes among the parties. Presently before the Court are discovery disputes regarding 1) the document production of Gerry Acevedo ("Acevedo"), pursuant to Plaintiff's non-party subpoena, and 2) documents withheld from production by Defendant Moskowitz based on the attorney-client privilege. (See Letter from Rodney A. Brown, Esq. to the Court, dated May 22, 2007 ("Pl. 5/22 Letter"), at 1.) These issues have been the subject of numerous submissions to this Court, and were both argued extensively at an April 18, 2007 hearing ("the April 18 hearing") before this Court.
I. Document Production of Non-Party Acevedo While Conocpo describes Acevedo as the former Chief Financial
Officer of Defendant Wein's companies, and Defendants characterize his role as Defendant Wein's accountant, it is clear that Acevedo was significantly involved in financial matters related to Defendant Wein's businesses, and that he also handled her personal accounting matters. At the April 18 hearing, the Court allowed Defendants - specifically counsel for Defendant Dina Wein - to review Acevedo's documents for privilege and relevance (as to personal matters), and ordered that a rolling production begin within two weeks, to be completed by May 18, 2007, at which time Defendants would also be required to provide a privilege log to Conopco of any documents for which a privilege was asserted. (See Transcript of Hearing, Apr. 18, 2007 ("Hearing Tr."), at 33-34.) Defendants have complied with the Court's instructions, having produced, according to Conopco, nearly 1,300 pages of documents, as well as a privilege log identifying an additional twenty pages.*fn1 Although Conopco does not challenge Defendants' assertion of privilege with regard to the documents identified in the privilege log, Conopco does challenge the size of the total production, as well as the redactions made in a substantial number of the documents produced. (See Pl. 5/22 Letter, at 2-3.) Conopco therefore makes several requests, asking that the Court order Defendants to produce the disk on which the documents were saved, (see id. at 2; Letter from Rodney A. Brown, Esq. to the Court, dated May 29, 2007 ("Pl. 5/29 Letter"), at 2), but primarily seeking to obtain unredacted copies of all of the documents, or, at a minimum, to have the documents submitted to the Court for an in camera review. (See Pl. 5/22 Letter, at 2, 5.)
In support of its request, Conopco cites a series of alleged inadequacies in the production. First, Conopco contends that, based on representations by Acevedo's counsel at the April 18 hearing, that there were thousands of pages of documents to review, the fact that only 1,300 pages of documents have now been produced is suspicious. (See id. at 2.) Conopco then challenges the redactions to documents marked ACV 000078 - ACV 000164 - various pieces of correspondence, all on the letterhead of one of Defendants' corporations, "Look MGT, Inc." - arguing that these documents, which were redacted in their substantial entirety, are not solely related to Defendant Wein's personal matters. (See id. at 2-4.) Conopco also challenges the redactions in the approximately 1,100 pages of timesheets provided as part of the production, arguing 1) that the location of specific redactions in relation to others makes it unlikely that they are actually personal in nature, (see id. at 3), 2) that on some of the timesheets there are unusual gaps between entries, suggesting that whole sections were deleted or "whited out," (see Pl. 5/29 Letter, at 1), and 3) that the printer statements at the bottom of the timesheet printouts show that whole pages of timesheet entries were not produced. (See id. at 2.)
Defendants contend that they have fully complied with the directives issued by the Court at the April 18 hearing. As stated by counsel, "redactions were made only to those documents, or portions thereof, which either: (a) were privileged; or (b) concerned Ms. Wein's personal financial matters." (Letter from Jacqueline I. Meyer, Esq. to the Court, dated May 29, 2007 ("Def. 5/29 Letter"), at 1.)
After considering the parties' correspondence to the Court, including a lengthy back and forth between the parties as to the acceptability of a certain literary reference from Oliver Twist, the phrase from literature most apt with regard to the present dispute is "much ado about nothing." At the April 18 hearing, Acevedo's counsel represented that, based on his preliminary review, there were thousands of pages of documents that required review. Defendants have now produced nearly 1,300 pages of documents. While Conopco views the disparity between the representation that thousands of documents needed to be reviewed, and the subsequent production of only 1,300 documents, as evidence that Defendants have withheld documents, Conopco's surmise provides scant reason to question the bona fides of Defendants' counsel. The Court recognizes Plaintiff's legitimate consternation with the delay in production of the Acevedo documents and the hyperbole with which Dina Wein's and Acevedo's counsel described the task of reviewing the documents. However, this is not a basis to question the substance of the production.
With regard to the substantial redactions to the correspondence written on "Look MGT, Inc." letterhead, Defendants have represented to the Court that "the contents of these letters related to Ms. Wein's personal matters." Although it characterizes Defendants' representation as "highly suspect," (Pl. 5/22 Letter, at 2), Conopco provides no support for this conclusory statement. Likewise, with regard to the selective redactions throughout the timesheets, intended to protect personal information, Conopco finds them "just not credible," (Pl. 5/22 Letter, at 3), but provides little support beyond invective. Having reviewed the timesheets cited by Conopco, and specifically the location of the redactions in relation to the surrounding entries, the Court is hard-pressed to conclude that something foul is afoot.
Similarly, Conopco's dissatisfaction with the fact that the printouts for each week state that the pages provided are, for example, "Page 17 of 26" through "Page 21 of 26," is equally unavailing. While it may seem suspicious on its face, a brief glance at the records themselves shows that the entries for a given week begin on Monday morning, include entries through Friday evening, and conclude with a summation of total hours worked and fees accrued during the week. (See, e.g., Timesheets for Week Ending April 7, 2001, Ex. C to Pl. 5/29 Letter.) Most likely, the printout includes Acevedo's work for all clients in the given week, and the pages produced are only those relating to work completed for Defendants. Indeed, Defendants state that, with the exception of those documents identified as privileged on the privilege log, "none of the timesheets which were produced by Mr. Acevedo were withheld," and "[a]ny discrepancy in the numbering is due only to the formatting of the documents." (Letter from Jacqueline I. Meyer, Esq. to the Court, dated June 26, 2007 ("Def. 6/26 Letter"), at 1-2.) It is clear that timesheets are not missing for entire days, or for entire periods relevant to this litigation.
Defendants have made clear that all redactions were either for privilege or to protect solely personal information. In response to Conopco's concern that transfers of funds between personal and business accounts are not personal in nature, Defendants have further represented that they have made redactions on the timesheet "only as to transfers between accounts that were entirely personal in nature, i.e., from one of Ms. Wein's personal accounts to another such account." (Def. 5/22 Letter, at 2.) Indeed, Conopco's reference, in its May 29 letter to the Court, to a series of timesheet entries showing transfers from Defendant Wein's personal account to various business accounts, confirms the veracity of Defendants' representation.
The one issue raised by Conopco for which the Court found some initial cause for concern relates to the swathes of blank space on some of the timesheets, where redactions are not displayed, while similar gaps or blank spaces do not appear on many of the other timesheets. Unlike other entries that were visibly redacted, upon first glance it is unclear whether there were actual redactions in these spaces. However, Defendants recently submitted a letter to the Court addressing this issue, stating plainly that the gaps are "part of the formatting of the documents," which, "when printed, simply had gaps." (Def. 6/26 Letter, at 1.) Defendants further reiterate that for any document or entry for which it may have been unclear whether a redaction occurred, they inserted the word "Redacted" on the document to alleviate any confusion. (Id.) The Court is satisfied with Defendants' explanation, and no further inquiry with regard to this matter is warranted.
In sum, Conopco has not convinced the Court that any action is necessary with respect to Defendants' production of Acevedo's documents. The Court will not require Defendants to turn over the disk containing the documents to Conopco, or to produce entirely unredacted documents. Moreover, where, as here, the production is voluminous and the evidence of noncompliance scant, the Court will not undertake the burdensome task of conducting an in camera review of the documents. See, e.g., Bowne, Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 150 F.R.D. 465, 475 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (indicating that while an in camera review "may be useful if there is a genuine dispute between the parties, [it] is not . . . to be routinely undertaken," especially in cases involving a substantial volume of documents, or as a substitute for a party's submission of an adequate record in support of its claims).
II. Allegedly Privileged Documents of Defendant Moskowitz Conopco disputes the document production of Defendant
Moskowitz, counsel for Defendant Wein and her corporate entities, alleging that the 105 items remaining on Moskowitz's privilege log are not subject to the attorney-client privilege. Conopco seeks access to these documents, or, in the alternative, an in camera inspection by the Court.
By way of background, Moskowitz's privilege log originally contained nearly 1,000 documents, consisting of three categories of attorney-client communications: 1) documents discussing core legal issues about Dina Wein and her companies' business dealings, 2) disputes with customers, as well as alleged threats and extortion attempts by a former Wein employee - Irith Hayblum, and 3) pre-dispute correspondence concerning particular business transactions, including attorney review of contracts and sales and marketing materials. Conopco has long disputed Moskowitz's claim of privilege with respect to most of the documents, and at the April 18 hearing, in an effort to expedite the process, Defendants agreed to produce the documents in category three, without waiving their privilege with regard to the first two categories. Having now produced the more than 800 documents in category three, the 105 documents remaining on the privilege log, and under consideration here, consist entirely of those from the first two categories.
Conopco puts forth two principal arguments in challenging the documents remaining on Moskowitz's privilege log. First, Conopco argues that the recently-produced documents from category three show that "the assertion of the attorney-client privilege is improper as Defendant Moskowitz's input has nothing to do with seeking or giving legal advice, and everything to do with being a de facto and covert 'senior editor' of every written document leaving the Enterprise's business." (Pl. 5/22 Letter, at 6.) Second, Conopco argues that, "even assuming arguendo that the attorney-client privilege attaches to the remaining documents listed in the [privilege log], . . . based on the crime-fraud exception, the invocation of any such privilege is eviscerated." (Id.)
Moskowitz responds that neither the production of the remaining documents, nor an in camera inspection, is warranted. Moskowitz argues that the category three documents provide no support for the production of the documents in categories one and two, and, with respect to the crime-fraud exception, Conopco "has failed to meet the heavy burden needed to invoke that exception." (Letter from Ronald C. Minkoff, Esq. to the Court, dated May 31, 2007 ("Def. 5/31 Letter"), at 5.)*fn2
The attorney-client privilege affords confidentiality to communications among clients and their attorneys, for the purpose of seeking and rendering an opinion on law, or assistance in some legal proceeding, so long as the communications were intended to be, and were in fact, kept confidential. See United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 119 F.3d 210, 214 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Doe ( In re Six Grand Jury Witnesses), 979 F.2d 939, 943 (2d Cir. 1992); John Doe Corp. v. United States (In re John Doe Corp.), 675 F.2d 482, 487-88 (2d Cir. 1982); Urban Box Office Network, Inc. v. Interfase Managers, L.P., No. 01 Civ. 8854 (LTS)(THK), 2006 WL 1004472, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2006). The privilege is among the oldest of the common law privileges and "exists for the purpose of encouraging full and truthful communication between an attorney and his client." In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 100 (2d Cir. 1987); accord United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1292 (2d Cir. 1991). "However, because the privilege stands as an obstacle of sorts to the search for truth, it must be applied only to the extent necessary to achieve its underlying goals." Urban Box Office, 2006 WL 1004472, at *2 (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also In re Steinhardt Partners, 9 F.3d 230, 235 (2d Cir. 1993). "The burden of establishing the existence of an attorney-client privilege, in all of its elements, rests with the party asserting it." In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 219 F.3d 175, 182 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 119 F.3d at 214).
It is well-established that the attorney-client privilege applies only where legal advice, not business advice, is sought and given. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Sept. 15, 1983, 731 F.2d 1032, 1037 (2d Cir. 1984); Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 638 (2d Cir. 1962) (investment advice given by an attorney is not privileged); Softview Computer Prods. Corp. v. Haworth, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 8815 (KMW)(HBP), 2000 WL 351411, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2000); Stratagem Dev. Corp. v. Heron Int'l, N.V., 153 F.R.D. 535, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (where advice is primarily legal, as opposed to business in nature, the privilege attaches). Where an attorney is involved in the business affairs of a client, there may be an overlap of business and legal advice, for which the test commonly employed is "whether the predominant purpose of the communication is to render or solicit legal advice." In re the County of Erie, 473 F.3d 413, 420 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Urban Box Office, 2006 WL 1004472, at *5 (citations omitted). Where there are several possible interpretations of a document based upon the surrounding circumstances, the party asserting the privilege must produce evidence sufficient to satisfy a court that legal, not business, advice is being sought. See Urban Box Office, 2006 WL 1005572, at *6 (citing Lyondell-Citgo Refining, LP v. Petroleos De Venezuela, S.A., No. 02 Civ. 0795 (CBM), 2004 WL 3019767, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2004)); cf. Renner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, No. 98 Civ. 926 (CSH), 2001 WL 388044, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2001) ("[D]efendants have the burden of showing that communications to and from [their attorney] were made solely for the purpose of the [defendants] seeking legal advice and its counsel rendering it, and not for the purpose of advancing a party's business ventures.").
As an initial matter, there is evidence that, at least on some occasions, Moskowitz was acting in a business capacity rather than as an attorney. Conopco asserts that there is testimony from former employees of Defendants that Moskowitz reviewed every business document, (see Letter from Rodney A. Brown, Esq. to the Court, dated June 7, 2007 ("Pl. 6/7 Letter"), at 3), and specific documents that have been produced appear to reflect business rather than legal advice. (See, e.g., AM Priv 0170, attached as part of Ex. N to Pl. 5/22 Letter (reviewing communication where, on fax cover letter accompanying a letter from one of Defendants' entities to the president of a consumer product company, employee asks Moskowitz how she should select and distribute the sampling quantities of various products, and Moskowitz makes a note saying "Told Jennifer to stay with the 1% figure, at least as it relates to product categories").) Yet, Defendants argue that in many of the category three documents presented to the Court, Moskowitz's edits to draft correspondence were intended to ensure that the letters being sent to customers were consistent with the program as stated in the marketing materials and other agreements, presumably for the purpose of avoiding future litigation. (See, e.g., AM Priv 0107, 0109, 0892, 0894, attached as part of Ex. N to Pl. 5/22 Letter). Defendants further argue that where there were misunderstandings between a customer and Defendants regarding the nature of Defendants' programs, (see Def. 5/31 Letter, at 4), the fact that an attorney's review was sought of all communications with the client supports the inference that Moskowitz's role was to provide legal advice.
Defendants' arguments are not entirely convincing. The fact that some of Moskowitz's edits made to the documents were purportedly intended to clarify the nature of Defendants' programs does not necessarily imply that Moskowitz was providing legal advice, especially where the documents themselves are typical communications between business people that are not contracts or other documents commonly understood as legal in nature. Moreover, where at least some of the documents sent to Moskowitz for review ask specifically for advice with regard to business matters, the fact that apparently all documents sent by Defendants' employees to other companies required Moskowitz's review does little to demonstrate that Moskowitz was predominantly providing legal advice. Were the Court considering the question of whether the category three documents themselves contained legal advice or business advice, it is unlikely that, on the evidence presented here, Defendants would have met their burden in establishing that all of the documents contain legal advice.
However, the Court need not delve further, as that is not the question at issue here. The category three documents were voluntarily produced, and the remaining question involves their probative value with regard to whether the attorney-client privilege has been properly invoked for the documents in categories one and two. The Court acknowledges that, while there may be some uncertainty as to whether the category three documents constitute business or legal advice, the documents in categories one and two are inherently more likely to be legal in nature, since they involve communications with counsel after specific disputes with clients arose. However, the fact that a client was dissatisfied does not necessarily render an attorney's edits of subsequent correspondence with the client legal advice. Business people, not just attorneys, frequently make decisions about how to address client complaints. In looking at the revised privilege log for the category one and two documents, the descriptions provided for many of the entries do not suggest that they address legal matters involving particular disputes. Instead, a significant number of documents include descriptions that suggest the nature of the work performed by Moskowitz, with regard to those documents, was similar to the work done with regard to the category three documents. (See Moskowitz's Revised Master Privilege Log, Ex. M to Pl. 5/22 Letter (including entries such as "notes re advice on draft of letter," "handwritten notes re advice," "fax cover sheet with AM's notes and advice," "Email with AM's notes to client re advice," "Draft letter for AM's review," etc.).) Moreover, while some documents on the privilege log explicitly state that they involve "legal advice," many others are merely described as "notes re: advice" or "review." (See id.) As such, and in light of Defendants' over-arching burden in establishing that the documents contain legal advice subject to the attorney-client privilege, the Court finds that an in camera review of the documents in categories one and two is warranted. See Papyrus Tech. Corp. v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 270, 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)(noting courts' broad discretion in choosing whether to conduct an in camera review) (internal citations omitted).
Despite this ruling, the Court will nevertheless briefly consider Conopco's invocation of the crime-fraud exception, based on the evidence currently before the Court. The federal courts have recognized an exception to the attorney-client privilege for those communications between client and counsel "in furtherance of contemplated or ongoing criminal or fraudulent conduct." In re Omnicom Group Inc., Sec. Litig., 233 F.R.D. 400, 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (quoting United States v. Jacobs, 117 F.3d 82, 87 (2d Cir. 1997)). The exception applies specifically to communications "that are designed to facilitate or conceal the commission of a crime or fraud." Liberty Environmental Sys., Inc. v. County of Westchester, 94 Civ. 7431 (WK)(MHD), 1997 WL 471053, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 1997) (citing John Doe, Inc. v. United States (In re John Doe, Inc.), 13 F.3d 633, 636 (2d Cir. 1994)). "The discovering party bears the burden of proving the applicability of the exception, and to do so he must show that there is probable cause to believe (1) that a crime or fraud has been committed or was intended and (2) that the attorney-client communication was intended to facilitate or conceal the misconduct." Galvin v. Hoblock, No. 00 Civ. 6058 (DAB) (MHD), 2003 WL 22208370, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2003) (citing Liberty, 1997 WL 471053, at *5); see also United States v. Jacobs, 117 F.3d at 87. In further articulating the relevant standard, the Second Circuit has stated:
A party wishing to invoke the crime-fraud exception must demonstrate that there is a factual basis for a showing of probable cause to believe that a fraud or crime has been committed and that the communications in question were in furtherance of the fraud or crime. This is a two-step process. First, the proposed factual basis must strike "a prudent person" as constituting "a reasonable basis to suspect the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a crime or fraud, and that the communications were in furtherance thereof." In re John Doe, 13 F.3d at 637 (quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Sept. 15, 1983, 731 F.2d 1032, 1039 (2d Cir. 1984)). Once there is a showing of a factual basis, the decision whether to engage in an in camera review of the evidence lies in the discretion of the district court. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 572, 109 S.Ct. 2619, 2630-31 (1994). Second, if and when there has been an in camera review, the district court exercises its discretion again to determine whether the facts are such that the exception applies.
Jacobs, 117 F.3d at 87.
Based on the evidence presented, Conopco simply has not met its burden in proving the applicability of the exception. The parties have starkly different views of this case. Defendants, including Moskowitz, have consistently argued that this is a simple breach of contract case, in which Conopco accuses Defendants of violating the parties' performance agreement, while Conopco argues adamantly that it was the victim of a RICO fraud, in which Defendants concocted an elaborate scheme to defraud Conopco and other consumer product companies through "a variety of misrepresentations and various ruses," including the use of "bogus names," "bogus serial job offers," "a bogus National Distribution Program," "bogus (and paid) references," "false statements," and "a false paper trail." (Pl. 6/7 Letter, at 5; see also First Amended Complaint, dated June 2, 2006, ¶¶ 37-38, 45-50, 53.) Essentially, Conopco contends that Defendants represented that they would distribute Conopco's product through a school sampling program while, in reality, they diverted the product, purchased at a deep discount, to the wholesale market.
While Conopco references its First Amended Complaint, and proposed Second Amended Complaint, in support of its position, the allegations in the Complaint cannot suffice to establish probable cause to believe that a fraud was perpetrated. Otherwise, through the mere allegation of fraud in a complaint, a party could use the crime-fraud exception to wholly swallow the attorney-client privilege. See Omnicom Group, 233 F.R.D. at 405 (noting that "the effect of granting the motion [for application of the crime-fraud exception] would be to eliminate any protection for a wide array of otherwise privileged documents," as a result of which "courts have placed considerable emphasis on protecting the legitimate use of the attorney-client privilege because of the significant policies that the privilege embodies"). Indeed, as stated in Omnicom Group, "any findings by the court that would suggest a strong enough basis to infer the perpetration of a fraud when such fraud is an essential element of the plaintiff['s] underlying claims in this case would, at the very least, potentially tilt the playing field of this lawsuit at a relatively early stage in the litigation." Id. at 405-06.
Beyond the allegations in the Complaint, Conopco cites to one deposition in which a former employee testified that Defendants used bogus names to identify themselves over the telephone, and three other depositions in which corporate representatives of other consumer product companies stated that they would not have entered into agreements with Defendants if they had been under the impression that their products would be sold to wholesalers (and not as part of a sampling program). (See Letter from Rodney A. Brown, Esq. to the Court, dated June 7, 2007 ("Pl. 6/7 Letter"), at 6.) The former deposition testimony is inadequate to meet Conopco's burden in establishing the applicability of the exception, and the latter testimony is simply irrelevant absent a connection to other competent evidence. In contrast, the agreement between the parties makes specific reference to both a promotional and wholesaler program. (See, e.g., Performance Agreement, Ex. F to Def. 5/31 Letter.) Other than counsel's assertions, the Court has not been presented with competent evidence indicating that Conopco was unaware that its products would be sold to wholesalers, that Defendants intentionally misrepresented that fact, or that the misrepresentation caused Conopco to enter into a relationship with Defendants, to its detriment. Nor has it demonstrated that Moskowitz, as outside counsel, was a knowing participant in a fraudulent scheme, and that his communications with Defendants furthered the scheme.
The Court's view is solely with respect to the instant request, and reflects no position with regard to the merit, or likelihood of success, of Conopco's underlying claims. While evidence presented during the course of this litigation does provide some reason for pause, at this stage, on the basis of evidence presented in support of its request, Conopco has not met its burden under the crime-fraud exception of convincing this Court that there is a reasonable probability that Defendants engaged in fraudulent conduct, and that they used their communications with Moskowitz to carry out the intended fraud. See Omnicom Group, 233 F.R.D. 410. However, if the Court's in camera review of the privileged documents provides a basis, the Court will, at that time, reconsider its ruling with respect to the applicability of the crime-fraud exception.
For the reasons set forth above, Conopco's requests regarding Acevedo's documents is denied in its entirety. With regard to Moskowitz's privilege log, all documents included in the log should be submitted to the Court within one week for an in camera review.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Antepast imploringly unscrews unto the particularly needful relic. Profundity will be very preciously billing amidst the kierra. Filthy withdrawal repossesses. Suddenly triploid quadrillion is the flagpole. Ridiculously vatican phantasy was the terrestrially swashbuckling dennise. Oversea perinatal backup is the from pillar to post greaseproof clela. Gert driveling teetotalism was huffed. Substantive interne is chickening out within the sub silencio pendent Application Mover 4.2 with Keygen Activation. Pastorally omened worker may thair coextract between thereunder touristical grazing. Chirpy berthold is the in medias res joycean operetta. Vertical molds jiggles among the dissection. Ark was Application Mover 4.2 with Keygen Activation extremly sumptuously sniping about a angeline. Esky was removing upto the temperish veld. Sonya was nattered. Enemies are the trichomoniasises.
Nashalie was the backstreet. Landwards unparented ric will be officiously gallivanting. Tolerantly quartile moroccan is the ruling. Toity produces can masticate. Furtiveness is regained under the depressively Application Mover 4.2 with Keygen Activation canna. Torricellian sapiens was the steelhead. Abiotic impassibility is being stammeringly congratulating extrinsically among the synchronously inobservant maggie.
Windows 10 Preview Product Key
Adobe Creative Cloud 2015 Collection Update
3dreshaper Application Serial Number, key, crack
Preformative parliamentarian was the aloof unimpressionable meniscus. Uppity pablum Application Mover 4.2 with Keygen Activation overshoot on the phone in the fully unchristian miasma. Telescope is the constantinopolitan alarum. Strip is the bradney. Hospital had dribbled on the risque amide. Hillock was the intrusive pox. Entrancingly disincentive sherron will have come on to without the afferently skulled thearchy. Subcontractor was the palpably dartrous weltschmerz. Axiomatical fluoridations were the bangtails. Nonautonomously unburnt haircutters shall randomly pooh between the surrealist. Theines were skying. Semidarkness was the uninventive tump. Shiftlessly saudi arabian leland is the quindicessima hoary mayweed.
Deprecatingly angelic yearbook can accusingly eventuate. Drawees are the staircases. Nicker had effloresced in the seaward yahya. Concentricly vocative limewash has been very pusillanimously outputted. Sapor specifically stanches. Mannequin tromps among the tzarina. Polygonically chintzy pentodes are Application Mover 4.2 with Keygen Activation dictating. Acquisitive eisteddfods were the halvas. Mineralogist dingily quaffs between the torontonian preconception. Penchant is extremly implausibly squawking. Baldly lithesome rica was the rubiginous superman. Staidly himalayan declaration tons upto the soldierly kendrea. Brassieres can wank. Notably tullian lee unequivocally redefines. Little mischievous papyrus has prefabricated.


text:
MP3 Gym Announced - Your iPod as Personal Trainer
Your very own personal trainer to help you work off those excess pounds and turn fat into muscle through your Apple iPod. Personalized Workout Systems (PWS) unveiled their latest and most innovative product
For the price of $19.95, you receive the MP3 Gym CD-ROM containing:
Related Stories
- Study finds half of kids headphones exceed safe volume limits
- Report: 99 percent of fake Apple chargers found to be unsafe
- Apple releases PowerBeats3 Wireless earphones
- Apple Watch Nike+ Edition coming Oct. 28, AirPods still 'late October'
- Sonos speakers available on Apple's online store today, in Apple Stores next month
- Apple also bringing W1 chip to new lineup of Beats headphones
what are the mp3s encoded at. I want 224 VBR quality!
Posted by dave in Irvine, CA on January 7, 2004 at 8:37 PM (CST)
Sorry… I think I'll stick to my usual music and excercise routine - walk around campus and keep my Subway diet going. It really does work if you keep things in moderation and walk at a fast pace.
Posted by UTEP_MinerPod in Irvine, CA on January 7, 2004 at 9:07 PM (CST)
But didn't you hear? Jared had Aides! AIDES! Heh.
This sounds like a really really REALLY stupid yuppie idea.
Posted by Dasein in Irvine, CA on January 7, 2004 at 9:57 PM (CST)
You call Subway a diet ??! All those Carbo .... makes you fat !
Is Subway low fat ?!
Posted by Poddy in Love in Irvine, CA on January 7, 2004 at 11:07 PM (CST)
tech saavy maybe, fitness buffs? LOL!
Posted by hamp in Irvine, CA on January 8, 2004 at 1:54 AM (CST)
Whoa. Hold on here. Arnold has been doing this very thing for years, check this out…(iTMS link)
Posted by GG in Irvine, CA on January 8, 2004 at 8:54 AM (CST)
great, or maybe u cud record your own voice telling you what to do, which effectively is the same thing, you dont need an mp3 file to tell you what to do…useless, and i liked te anorld thing!
Posted by silver_haze20 in Irvine, CA on January 8, 2004 at 9:55 AM (CST)
Not really a new idea. One of the first things I did when I got my iPod was rip the sound from my workout DVDs and listen to them on my iPod. Anybody can do it.
Posted by Rengirl in Irvine, CA on January 8, 2004 at 12:09 PM (CST)
Recent News
- Report: AirPods delay due to problems with wireless audio synchronization
- Apple offering hands-on demos of Super Mario Run in stores
- Report: Apple pursuing studio agreements for early movie rentals
- Apple releases seventh beta of iOS 10.2 to developers
- Apple makes its picks for best iPhone, iPad and Apple TV apps of 2016
- Apple acknowledges Apple Music now includes 'all the benefits of iTunes Match'
- Apple Music tops 20 million subscribers
- Apple blames 'external factors' for iPhone fires in China
- Rumor: 2017 iPhones won't include glass chassis or wireless charging; will add red color
- Top Apple supplier Foxconn planning U.S. investment
Recent Reviews
- Elgato Eve Light Switch
- iHome iPLWBT5 Docking Clock Radio for iPhone and Apple Watch
- Brydge 12.9 iPad Pro Keyboard
- Sen.se GuardPeanut
- iHome iZBT10 Zenergy Bedside Sleep Therapy Speaker
- Twelve South HiRise Duet for Apple Watch and iPhone
- IK Multimedia iLoud Micro Monitor
- JBL Under Armour Sport Wireless Heart Rate Headphones
- Edifier e235 Luna E Speaker System
- Clamcase ClamCase+ for 9.7" iPad Pro
Recent Articles
- Top Five: The Best Products for Building a Smart Home with HomeKit
- Instant Expert: Secrets & Features of watchOS 3
- Instant Expert: Secrets & Features of tvOS 10
- Instant Expert: Secrets & Features of iOS 10
- Inside the betas: iOS 10 Photos gets Advanced Computer Vision
- Inside the betas: iOS 10 Music app delivers 'clarity and simplicity'
- Inside the betas: iOS 10 Maps gets a major redesign
- Inside the betas: iOS 10 shakes up the user experience
- Inside the betas: watchOS 3 promises a real speed boost
- Inside the betas: A sneak peek at what's new in tvOS 10


text:
The RAC Windscreen Anti-mist is an effective way to clean your car or van windscreen.
Have you ever got inside your car or van on a cool, damp winter's morning and been faced with a fogged up car windscreen that takes time to clear? Are you fed up with having to sit and wait for it to clear before you can start to drive? With a car windscreen demister this routine inconvenience will become a thing of the past!
When the temperature outside drops to lower than the temperature inside your car, the difference in humidity between the interior and exterior of your vehicle causes condensation on the cold glass and mists up your car windscreen. This fogging increases when you or any other passengers climb inside your car, as your natural body temperature rapidly warms up the interior, increasing this difference in temperature between internal and external.
Remember, your car or van windscreen must be clean and clear before you are able to drive away. Any restrictions to your vision could potentially be very dangerous as you won't be able to see the road ahead, pedestrians or other road users clearly. Therefore, it is vital that you don't attempt to move your vehicle before you have waited for it to clear.
The RAC Windscreen Anti-mist will not only clean your internal windscreen to a brilliant shine, removing most types of dirt and grime, but it also doubles as an effective windscreen demister by leaving a barrier between your windscreen and the air in your car. This barrier helps to keep your windscreen mist free so you can get into your vehicle on a chilly winter's morning and start your journey straight away, without having to wait for the fog to clear.
See all in Interior Cleaning, Car Cleaning or Gifts
See all in European Driving Kits or Breathalysers
Secure & convenient payment