Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 08/17/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: January 24, 2018

According to the Complaint, LifeVantage sells distributorships which Defendants market as the business opportunity using sales pitches promising wealth and business independence. Defendants’ compensation program encourages distributors to recruit others into the system with the same promises of wealth and business independence. Distributors pay money to participate in the business opportunity, which funds LifeVantage’s payments and bonuses to other distributors. Despite LifeVantage’s claims of retail sales, little money comes in to the system from actual retail users of LifeVantage products. Instead, it is believed that the majority of the company’s retail sales are monthly sales made to distributors who purchase LifeVantage’s products mainly in order to participate in the compensation program and remain eligible to receive bonuses.

The Complaint alleges that LifeVantage and the Officer Defendants are operating an illegal pyramid scheme in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, federal securities laws, and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

On August 6, 2018, this case was transferred to the District of Utah. Plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint on September 20. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on November 5. On December 5, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend the Complaint. On December 19, Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended Complaint.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Non-Cyclical
Industry: Personal & Household Products
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: N/A
Company Market: N/A
Market Status: N/A

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: D. Connecticut
DOCKET #: 18-CV-00135
JUDGE: Hon. Stefan R. Underhill
DATE FILED: 01/24/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/01/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/24/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey, LLP
  2. Reid Collins & Tsai LLP
  3. Sommers Schwartz, PC
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Utah
DOCKET #: 18-CV-00621
JUDGE: Hon. Stefan R. Underhill
DATE FILED: 12/19/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/01/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/24/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Christensen Young & Associates
  2. Marino Law PLLC
  3. Reid Collins & Tsai LLP
  4. Sommers Schwartz, PC
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available