109 Misc.2d 598, 440 N.Y.S.2d 454
The STATE of New York, Plaintiff,
v.
PHASE II SYSTEMS, INC., William
Warren, Jeffrey P. McCormick, James
Heelan and
Gaven Pelling, Defendants.
Supreme Court, Special Term,
New York County, Part I.
May 13, 1981.
EDWARD J. GREENFIELD, Justice:
Plaintiff, State of New York, by the
Attorney General seeks an order enjoining
defendants from operating a pyramid
scheme and from distributing any funds
obtained from the foregoing "fraudulent
practices."
Defendants allege that they are in the
business of selling cosmetics. They have
an elaborate marketing plan described
both in the plaintiff's and defendants'
papers. Plaintiff characterizes the plan as
one in which the emphasis is on recruiting
new people to the company's organization
rather than sales.
Defendant describes the organization as
one of a series of steps in which the new
"start", having sold a sufficient amount of
the product, moves up in levels of the
organization getting progressively higher
percentages of the sales. At the
maximum step, a "Gold Leader" receives
40% of retail sales plus 23% of wholesale
product sales for which he is responsible
either through his own sales or those of
his recruits.
*599 While plaintiff's papers are
noticeably lacking in the absence of
affidavits of inspectors with firsthand
knowledge of defendants' operations, the
description of the operations of Phase II
Systems, Inc. by both plaintiff and
defendants is one that would lead the
court to believe that the defendants are
operating a chain distributor scheme.
[1] G.B.L. 359-fff provides in part that "
'a chain distributor scheme' is a sales
device whereby a person, upon condition
that he makes an investment, is granted a
license or right to solicit or recruit for profit
or economic gain one or more additional
persons who are also granted such
license or right upon condition of making
an investment and may further perpetuate
the chain of persons who are granted
such license or right upon such condition."
An investment can be a purchase of
property.
The mechanics of this scheme are
substantially the same as the classic
pyramid scheme except that one can join
the organization for $18.00 and become a
"member" and then receive a 10%
commission on all sales. While defendant
speaks of "actual retail sales", it defines a
retail sale to include sales or purchases to
members and salespersons. When a
member buys $333.00 worth of products,
he or she becomes a salesperson who
then gets a 25% commission. Thus, the
net investment to the salesperson is
$276.00 ($333.00 less 25% plus $18.00).
The person who brings in a new
salesperson gets a $50.00 bonus. If a
salesperson can bring in eight new
recruits as salespersons in a calendar
month, he becomes a distributor and then
in addition to getting $50.00 for each he
gets an additional 15% on all sales
purchases by the new salespersons. The
formula gets more complicated as the
distributor continues to recruit new
salesmen and progresses from distributor
to silver level to the top or gold level. The
Attorney General has calculated that while
an original salesperson needs to recruit
only 32 persons to achieve the gold level,
in order for those recruited in the fifth
generation, an additional 167,772,154
persons will have to be recruited (initially
ordering in excess of $55 billion worth of
products).
Effectively, then, sales of products to
non-members or non-salespersons is
unnecessary since members or
salespersons *600 can make money just
by bringing into the organization new
people willing to become a salesperson.
**456 [2] There is sufficient indication
herein that defendants are participating in
a scheme where the emphasis is not on
the sale of a product, but on recruiting
new organizational rows to boost existing
members. (See S.E.C. v. Glen Turner
Enterprises, Inc., 474 F.2d 476 [CA-9,
1973]).
[3] Pursuant to G.B.L. 359-fff, such a
scheme is illegal. An illegal business
transaction can be enjoined pursuant to
Executive Law 63(12).
Plaintiff has established the likelihood of
success on the merits and the danger of
irreparable harm to the public (See State
v. Kozak, 91 Misc.2d 394, 398 N.Y.S.2d
15).
[4] In addition, it should be noted that the
Attorney General in his third cause of
action, alleges that defendant, a Nevada
corporation is not authorized to do
business in this state pursuant to B.C.L.
1301 and 1304. Defendant upon this
motion does not address this allegation
and thus upon this ground the injunction
could be issued (B.C.L. 1303).
Accordingly, the motion is granted.
END OF DOCUMENT
Main Page | About Grimes & Reese | Practice Areas | MLM Law Clients | MLM Articles
MLM Law Library | What Our Clients Say | What's New | Search MLM Law | MLM Law Blog | Site Map