Plaintiffs
- A defendant in this case is the Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (United Kingdom).
- Amway (UK) Limited is a company based in the United Kingdom.
Summary
- An investigation into the operations of Amway UK, Britt World Wide (BWW), and Network TwentyOne was launched on January 9, 2006, by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (then known as the DTI - Department of Trade and Industry, later changed to BERR - Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform).
- On April 11, 2007, the Secretary of State filed a petition with the United Kingdom Company Court seeking the dissolution of all three corporations.
- Following negotiations, BWW decided to discontinue operations in the United Kingdom, and the matter was dismissed.
- Network 21 was also dismissed from the inquiry into Amway as a result of their agreement to abide by the conclusions of the investigation.
- Following the filing of the petition, Amway immediately instituted a moratorium on all new sponsorship and a ban on the distribution of any Business Support Materials that were not developed by Amway. Amway made a number of important adjustments to its business model in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland shortly after that.
- Hearings in the case against Amway were place on the 26th to the 30th of November 2007 and on the 3rd to the 7th of December 2007.
- In its claims against Amway, BERR asserted that the company was -
- unacceptable in and of themselves; and/or
- unconstitutional lottery, as defined in Section 1 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976, or both; and/or
- a fraudulent trading strategy in violation of Section 120 of the Fair Trading Act of 1973.
- Amway UK agreed to a number of undertakings, which included the following, and Justice Norris delivered his findings in the case on May 14, 2008, dismissing all allegations against the company.
- The current prohibition on the creation, sale, or marketing of BSM that is not authorised and distributed by Amway should be maintained.
- (b) to refrain from imposing a registration charge or a renewal fee; and
- In addition, the company has agreed not to hire new ABOs until it has reported profits data in compliance with a specified income disclosure policy (which requires annual disclosure for 12 month periods of the average earnings and the highest and lowest earnings of each category of ABO together with the minimum income levels for qualification for higher rewards and the number of persons qualified at each level ).
- BERR filed two appeals in the case, both of which claimed procedural flaws on the part of the court. While the appeals were underway, Justice Norris denied BERR's request to prevent Amway from resuming sponsorship activities while the appeals were pending.
- On July 21, 2008, Amway UK provided figures on the earnings of distributors, and sponsoring was once again available. The appeals were denied on January 29, 2009, according to the decision.
Documents from the courtroom
- BERR vs Amway UK - Final Decision
- Final Decision in the BERR versus Amway UK Case
- BERR vs. Amway UK - Reconsideration
- BERR versus Amway UK - Decision on the Appeal
0 comments: