ACN intends to petition the Supreme Court with its plea to compel arbitration.
As they awaited the decision of their writ of certiorari, the corporation asked the Supreme Court to halt the District Court proceedings.
The Supreme Court received ACN’s application on or about December 13th.
ACN claims in its application that the denial of its motion to compel arbitration has resulted in
major circuit disagreement about how the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) section 4 should be interpreted.
ACN asked for a stay of the District Court proceedings as continuing the lawsuit would
ACN will be damaged permanently, making any redress requested in this Court pointless.
One intriguing thing to keep in mind is that ACN isn’t a party to the relevant litigation. Instead, the plaintiffs are suing the Trump family to make them liable for ACN’s marketing.
Nevertheless, as stated in ACN’s application;
Instead of ACN, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are suing the Trump defendants.
However, they claim that ACN’s marketing strategies were dishonest and deceptive, that its business strategy was illegal, and that the fees paid to ACN—less the money recovered—are the measure of damages.
Their main grievance centers on ACN.
ACN has already suffered significant financial and reputational loss as a result of this case, which it is unable to substantially alleviate.
ACN’s business strategy has frequently been mischaracterized as a marketing fraud, scheme, and scam.
Numerous press reports that followed the Second Circuit’s ruling upholding the district court reiterated the Plaintiffs’ claims that ACN is a “marketing fraud targeting the poor and working class.”
With each new round of bad media publicity, ACN suffers a material injury that becomes more severe.
IBOs, staff members, and potential IBOs who have seen the media coverage have contacted the firm several times, as ACN has previously said.
These inquiries have made it quite evident that many people have been misled into believing that ACN is a defendant in a fraud class action. IBOs have expressed worry to ACN that these media stories may be deterring prospective IBOs from joining the company and customers from using its services.
ACN is in a blatantly unfair situation right now.
As the subject of a case that should never have gone to court and in which ACN has no meaningful chance to defend itself, ACN has already experienced reputational damage.
Absent a stay, ACN will continue to experience this injury.
Justice Sotomayor rejected ACN’s request for a stay on or about December 21. The writ of certiorari filed by ACN is still pending.
This one is a little challenging. Although ACN has not been sued, I understand their position given that they are directly involved in the case.
Also, I understand why they haven’t had any luck thus far. The conflict is between the Plaintiffs and the Trump family; they are not parties.
On the other hand, based on BehindMLM’s published ACN evaluation, I wasn’t sure the business had real retail clients. Or, at the very least, not a sizable portion of them were biased toward distributors.
Watching to see if the Supreme Court hears ACN’s petition will be intriguing. Stay tuned…
editor
Share post:
ACN intends to petition the Supreme Court with its plea to compel arbitration.
As they awaited the decision of their writ of certiorari, the corporation asked the Supreme Court to halt the District Court proceedings.
The Supreme Court received ACN’s application on or about December 13th.
ACN claims in its application that the denial of its motion to compel arbitration has resulted in
major circuit disagreement about how the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) section 4 should be interpreted.
ACN asked for a stay of the District Court proceedings as continuing the lawsuit would
ACN will be damaged permanently, making any redress requested in this Court pointless.
One intriguing thing to keep in mind is that ACN isn’t a party to the relevant litigation. Instead, the plaintiffs are suing the Trump family to make them liable for ACN’s marketing.
Nevertheless, as stated in ACN’s application;
Instead of ACN, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are suing the Trump defendants.
However, they claim that ACN’s marketing strategies were dishonest and deceptive, that its business strategy was illegal, and that the fees paid to ACN—less the money recovered—are the measure of damages.
Their main grievance centers on ACN.
ACN has already suffered significant financial and reputational loss as a result of this case, which it is unable to substantially alleviate.
ACN’s business strategy has frequently been mischaracterized as a marketing fraud, scheme, and scam.
Numerous press reports that followed the Second Circuit’s ruling upholding the district court reiterated the Plaintiffs’ claims that ACN is a “marketing fraud targeting the poor and working class.”
With each new round of bad media publicity, ACN suffers a material injury that becomes more severe.
IBOs, staff members, and potential IBOs who have seen the media coverage have contacted the firm several times, as ACN has previously said.
These inquiries have made it quite evident that many people have been misled into believing that ACN is a defendant in a fraud class action. IBOs have expressed worry to ACN that these media stories may be deterring prospective IBOs from joining the company and customers from using its services.
ACN is in a blatantly unfair situation right now.
As the subject of a case that should never have gone to court and in which ACN has no meaningful chance to defend itself, ACN has already experienced reputational damage.
Absent a stay, ACN will continue to experience this injury.
Justice Sotomayor rejected ACN’s request for a stay on or about December 21. The writ of certiorari filed by ACN is still pending.
This one is a little challenging. Although ACN has not been sued, I understand their position given that they are directly involved in the case.
Also, I understand why they haven’t had any luck thus far. The conflict is between the Plaintiffs and the Trump family; they are not parties.
On the other hand, based on BehindMLM’s published ACN evaluation, I wasn’t sure the business had real retail clients. Or, at the very least, not a sizable portion of them were biased toward distributors.
Watching to see if the Supreme Court hears ACN’s petition will be intriguing. Stay tuned…