Markets Wired - Page 1067 of 1416 - Global Financial Market News and Press Releases

FTC and Idaho Attorney General Challenge St. Luke’s Health System’s Acquisition of Saltzer Medical Group as Anticompetitive

The Federal Trade Commission, together with the Idaho Attorney General, will file a complaint in federal district court seeking to block St. Luke’s Health System, Ltd.’s acquisition of Idaho’s largest independent, multi-specialty physician practice group, Saltzer Medical Group P.A. According to the joint complaint to be filed today, the combination of St. Luke’s and Saltzer would give it the market power to demand higher rates for health care services provided by primary care physicians (PCPs) in Nampa, Idaho and surrounding areas, ultimately leading to higher costs for health care consumers.

“St. Luke’s acquisition of Saltzer Medical Group has created a dominant single provider of adult primary care physician services in Nampa, with a nearly 60 percent share of the market,” said Richard Feinstein, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “The result of the acquisition will be higher prices for the services that those physicians provide, with costs ultimately passed on to Nampa employers and their employees.”

St. Luke’s is a not-for-profit health system with headquarters in Boise, Idaho. It owns and operates six hospitals.

Before being acquired by St. Luke’s, Saltzer was a for-profit, physician-owned, multi-specialty group located in Nampa. With approximately 44 physicians, Saltzer was the largest and oldest independent multi-specialty doctors’ group in Idaho. Its specialties include family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics.

Effective December 31, 2012, St. Luke’s acquired all of Saltzer’s personal property and equipment. The deal transferred to St. Luke’s the power to negotiate health plan contracts on Saltzer’s behalf and to establish rates and charges for services provided by Saltzer physicians. Saltzer, on behalf of its physicians, has also entered into a five-year professional services agreement with St. Luke’s.

According to the joint complaint, St. Luke’s acquisition of Saltzer was anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 48-106 of the Idaho Competition Act. It created a single dominant provider of adult primary care physician (adult PCP) services in Nampa, with the combined entity commanding nearly a 60 percent share of that market. In addition, an alternative network of health care providers that does not include St. Luke’s/Saltzer’s primary care physicians becomes far less attractive for employers with employees living in Nampa. he FTC and Idaho Attorney General allege that the newly combined primary care practices will give St. Luke’s greater bargaining leverage with health care plans, with higher prices for services eventually passed on to local employers and their employees.

Health plans serving Nampa have been able to resist some of St. Luke’s demands for higher rates for health care services to date. The complaint states that they still have a credible outside option – a network that includes physicians from Saltzer and St. Alphonsus, a health system that competes with St. Luke’s. The ability of health plans to put together an alternative network of adult PCP providers involving Saltzer and St. Alphonsus would be eliminated by St. Luke’s acquisition of Saltzer.

The Commission vote to join the State of Idaho in filing the complaint was 4-0. It will be filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.

Two of St. Luke’s competitors, St. Alphonsus and Treasure Valley Hospital Limited Partnership, have already filed a private action in federal district court in Boise, Idaho, seeking to block St. Luke’s acquisition of Saltzer. The district court has scheduled the private plaintiffs’ action for trial beginning on July 29, 2013, after denying their request for a preliminary injunction. The FTC’s joint complaint with the Idaho Attorney General will be filed in the same court, and the staff has been authorized to ask the district court to consolidate the two actions for discovery and trial.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law. The cases will be decided by the court.

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to [email protected], or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 601 New Jersey Ave., Room 7117, Washington, DC 20001. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read Competition Counts. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

FTC Staff Revises Online Advertising Disclosure Guidelines

The Federal Trade Commission today released new guidance for mobile and other online advertisers that explains how to make disclosures clear and conspicuous to avoid deception.

Updating guidance known as Dot Com Disclosures, which was released in 2000, the new FTC staff guidance, .com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising, takes into account the expanding use of smartphones with small screens and the rise of social media marketing. It also contains mock ads that illustrate the updated principles.

Like the original, the updated guidance emphasizes that consumer protection laws apply equally to marketers across all mediums, whether delivered on a desktop computer, a mobile device, or more traditional media such as television, radio, or print.

If a disclosure is needed to prevent an online ad claim from being deceptive or unfair, it must be clear and conspicuous. Under the new guidance, this means advertisers should ensure that the disclosure is clear and conspicuous on all devices and platforms that consumers may use to view the ad. The new guidance also explains that if an advertisement without a disclosure would be deceptive or unfair, or would otherwise violate a Commission rule, and the disclosure cannot be made clearly and conspicuously on a device or platform, then that device or platform should not be used.

The 2000 guidance stated that to help ensure clear and conspicuous disclosures, advertisers should consider the disclosure’s placement and proximity to the relevant ad claim, its prominence, whether audio disclosures are loud enough to be heard, and whether visual disclosures appear for long enough to be noticed. Although the 2000 guidelines defined proximity as “near, and when possible, on the same screen,” and stated that advertisers should “draw attention to” disclosures, the new guidance says disclosures should be “as close as possible” to the relevant claim.

Like the original guidance, the updated Dot Com Disclosures calls on advertisers to avoid using hyperlinks for disclosures that involve product cost or certain health and safety issues. The new guidelines also call for labeling hyperlinks as specifically as possible, and they caution advertisers to consider how their hyperlinks will function on various programs and devices.

The new guidance points out that advertisers using space-constrained ads, such as on some social media platforms, must still provide disclosures necessary to prevent an ad from being deceptive, and it advises marketers to avoid conveying such disclosures through pop-ups, because they are often blocked.

In updating the Dot Com Disclosures to reflect changes in digital media since 2000, the FTC held three public comment periods, and hosted a day-long public workshop in May 2012.

The Commission vote approving the staff guidance was 4-0-1, with Commissioner Leibowitz not participating.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

FTC Staff Makes Recommendations to Texas Public Utility Commission on Programs to Improve Reliability of Electricity Markets

Federal Trade Commission staff submitted a comment in response to a request from the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) for comments on demand response (DR) as one aspect of the PUC’s ongoing review of the reliability of electricity markets.

The FTC staff comment noted that DR programs give electricity customers an incentive to reduce or reschedule power consumption when electricity is scarce and expensive, which saves money by reducing consumption during peak demand periods, encourages electricity generators to bid competitively, and reduces price volatility.

The FTC staff comment encourages the PUC to adopt DR policies that use standard market approaches, allow competition, and offer accurate price signals to all entities that can contribute to balancing the amounts of electricity consumed and supplied. “In particular, if Texas offers good incentives for retailers to enroll consumers in DR programs, it can then harness competition among retailers to offer innovative DR programs that provide the greatest benefits to electricity consumers,” the comment states.

The Commission vote approving the comment was 4-0. (FTC File No. V130005; the staff contact is John H. Seesel, Associate General Counsel for Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 202-326-2702.)

FTC to Host Mobile Cramming Roundtable May 8

The Federal Trade Commission will host a roundtable on May 8, 2013, in Washington, D.C., to examine unauthorized third-party charges on mobile phone bills – a practice known as mobile cramming. The roundtable will bring together consumer advocates, industry representatives, and government regulators to explore various issues, including how mobile cramming occurs and how to protect consumers from this practice.

The FTC’s interest in mobile cramming stems from its broad mandate to protect consumers in the mobile marketplace. Mobile cramming typically involves a variety of entities that fall within the FTC’s jurisdiction. These include content providers, which create and sell ringtones and other types of content; billing aggregators, which facilitate the placement of third-party charges on mobile phone bills; and mobile carriers, which bill for these third-party services, and which fall under the FTC’s jurisdiction when they are engaged in activities outside common carrier activities.

This roundtable will expand upon previous Commission initiatives, including its 2012 mobile payments workshop, its 2011 landline cramming forum, and its more than 30 law enforcement actions against parties involved in landline cramming. Today, the Commission staff is releasing the report from its mobile payments workshop, which calls for further study of mobile cramming.

The FTC invites the public to submit original research, recommendations for topics of discussion and requests to participate as panelists. The FTC also invites those interested to submit comments on any of the following topics:

What is the process for placing a third-party charge on a mobile phone bill? What types of companies are involved?

Does the ability to place third-party charges on a mobile phone bill have beneficial uses? How is this process used for charitable donations? Do unbanked or underbanked populations pay for products or services through their mobile phone bills?

How do the issues associated with mobile cramming differ from the issues associated with landline cramming?

What current protections exist to protect consumers from mobile cramming? Are these protections effective? How can they be improved?

What parties are best equipped to prevent mobile cramming? What additional strategies would be most effective in preventing and/or remedying mobile cramming?

How prevalent are third-party charges on mobile phone bills, both authorized and not, in other countries? How have international counterparts addressed consumer protection issues in this area, including mobile cramming?

What steps should government and industry members take to protect consumers from mobile cramming?

Electronic Submissions can be made online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/mobilecramming. Paper submissions should reference the Mobile Cramming Roundtable both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC requests that any paper submissions be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Requests to participate should include a statement detailing any relevant expertise in mobile cramming and should be submitted by e-mail to [email protected] by March 29, 2013. Panelists selected to participate will be notified by April 5, 2013.

The roundtable is free and open to the public. It will be held at the FTC’s satellite building conference center, located at 601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

FTC Staff Report Examines Growing Use of Mobile Payments

As part of its efforts to ensure that consumers are protected in the growing mobile marketplace, the Federal Trade Commission issued a staff report today highlighting key issues facing consumers and companies as they adopt mobile payment services. The report, titled “Paper, Plastic… or Mobile? An FTC Workshop on Mobile Payments,” is based on a workshop held by the Commission in 2012 to examine these issues.

The mobile payments arena is growing quickly, and the report notes that mobile payment systems can provide innovative and convenient options for consumers. But the report also notes three major areas of potential concern for consumers.

First, the report encourages companies to develop clear policies on how consumers can resolve disputes arising from a fraudulent mobile payment or an unauthorized charge.

Consumers fund mobile purchases using a variety of sources, from credit cards to prepaid debit cards to charges placed on their mobile phone bills. Under current regulations, each of these funding methods has a different process for consumers to dispute unauthorized charges, with varying levels of consumer protection. This creates a potentially confusing landscape for consumers trying to decide which mobile payment system to use and how to fund these payments, the report notes.

The report also highlights the growing problem of mobile “cramming,” which occurs when third parties place unauthorized charges onto consumers’ mobile phone bills. The Commission discussed this issue in its previous comment to the Federal Communications Commission, and the FTC staff has announced a mobile cramming roundtable to be held in May.

Second, the report encourages industry-wide adoption of strong measures to ensure security throughout the mobile payment process. The report addresses ways sensitive financial information can be kept secure during the mobile payment process, such as through end-to-end encryption. The possibilities for encryption listed in the report cover everything from the authentication of data during the transaction to the secure storage of information on a mobile device.

Third, the report highlights the need for companies in the mobile payment sphere to practice “privacy by design,” incorporating strong privacy practices, consumer choice, and transparency into their products from the outset. Doing so, the report notes, increases the likelihood of consumer trust in the mobile payment process.

The report also notes the privacy issues arising from the consolidation of consumers’ personal information in the mobile payment process. In a traditional credit card transaction, a merchant will have sensitive financial information about consumers, but will generally not also have their contact information and a record of their location. Mobile payment providers also potentially have access to a much larger cache of personal information stored on the consumer’s mobile device.

The Commission vote to issue the report was 4-0-1, with former Chairman Jon Leibowitz not participating.

FTC Action Halts Brooklyn Company from Using Deception, Threats, and Intimidation to Trick Elderly Consumers Into Paying for Unordered Medical Alert Devices

At the Federal Trade Commission’s request, a U.S. district court has temporarily shut down a Brooklyn, New York-based operation that the allegedly used deception, threats, and intimidation to induce elderly consumers to pay for medical alert systems they neither ordered nor wanted.

In its complaint, the FTC charges that telemarketers for Instant Response Systems call elderly consumers – many of whom are in poor health and rely on others for help with managing their finances – and try to pressure them into buying a medical alert service that consists of a pendant that supposedly allows them to get help during emergencies. In numerous instances, Instant Response Systems allegedly has falsely claimed during sales calls that consumers who did not order the medical alert service have, in fact, bought the service and owe the company money — often hundreds of dollars.

The company also allegedly has shipped bogus invoices and unordered medical alert pendants to consumers without their consent, has repeatedly threatened consumers with legal action in order to induce and coerce payment, and has subjected them to verbal abuse. In addition, the FTC contends that Instant Response Systems has illegally made numerous unsolicited calls to consumers whose phone numbers are listed on the National Do Not Call Registry.

According to the FTC’s complaint, consumers who tried to contact the company to dispute the false charges or find out how to return unopened packages often were unable to reach anyone. If they did reach a representative, they allegedly faced threats, verbal abuse, and demands that they pay for the product.

Based on this alleged conduct, the FTC charged the company and its principals with making illegal misrepresentations to consumers, violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule by calling phone numbers on the DNC Registry, and violating the Unordered Merchandise Statute by sending consumers pendants they did not order.

The defendants charged in the case are Instant Response Systems, LLC, also doing business as Response Systems, B.B. Mercantile, Ltd., Medical Alert Industrial, and Medical Alert Services; and Jason Abraham, also known as Yaakov Abraham, individually and as an officer of Instant Response Systems. Abraham was previously sued by the FTC in 2003 for selling international “drivers’ licenses” and phony university diplomas.

The Commission vote approving the complaint was 5-0, with former Chairman Jon Leibowitz and former Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch participating. It was filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn Division, on February 25, 2013, and the seal was lifted on March 7, 2013.

The FTC appreciates the assistance of the New York State Office of the Attorney General in helping to investigate and bring this case.

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law. The case will be decided by the court.

(FTC File No. 122-3041)

FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges That Non-Compete Agreement Harmed Competition in the Market for Bulk Bleach Used to Disinfect Water

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges that a non-compete agreement between bulk bleach producers Oltrin Solutions, LLC and JCI Jones Chemicals, Inc. reduced competition in North Carolina, South Carolina, and southern Virginia.

In settling the FTC’s complaint, Oltrin has agreed to release JCI from an agreement not to sell bleach in North Carolina and South Carolina. The agreement was part of a 2010 transaction between the two firms that the FTC alleges violated antitrust laws.

The Commission vote approving the final order was 4-0-1, with Commisioner Jon Leibowitz not participating. (FTC File No. 111-0078; the staff contact is Eric M. Sprague, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2101; see press release dated January 18, 2013.)

FTC and DOJ Extend Public Comment Period for PAE Workshop Through April 5, 2013

The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have extended the deadline for submitting comments on their recent Patent Assertion Entity Activities Workshop to April 5, 2013.

The workshop, held December 10, 2012, explored the impact of patent assertion entity (PAE) activities on innovation and competition and the implications for antitrust enforcement and policy. Additional information about the workshop is available at the FTC and DOJ websites. Comments may be submitted via e-mail at: [email protected].

FTC Cracks Down on Senders of Spam Text Messages Promoting “Free” Gift Cards

The Federal Trade Commission is cracking down on affiliate marketers that allegedly bombarded consumers with hundreds of millions of unwanted spam text messages in an effort to steer them towards deceptive websites falsely promising “free” gift cards.

In eight different complaints filed in courts around the United States, the FTC charged 29 defendants with collectively sending more than 180 million unwanted text messages to consumers, many of whom had to pay for receiving the texts. The messages promised consumers free gifts or prizes, including gift cards worth $1,000 to major retailers such as Best Buy, Walmart and Target. Consumers who clicked on the links in the messages found themselves caught in a confusing and elaborate process that required them to provide sensitive personal information, apply for credit or pay to subscribe to services to get the supposedly “free” cards.

“Today’s announcement says ‘game over’ to the major league scam artists behind millions of spam texts,” said Charles A. Harwood, Acting Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC is committed to rooting out this deception and stopping it. For consumers who find spam texts on their phones, delete them, immediately. The offers are, in a word, garbage.”

The FTC complaints targeted defendants who sent the unwanted text messages, as well as those who operated the deceptive websites. In addition, the FTC is pursuing a contempt action against a serial text message spammer, Phil Flora, who was barred in 2011 from sending spam text messages and who is accused of being part of this spam texting scheme as well.

The Commission’s complaints seek restraining orders against the defendants preventing them from continuing their alleged deceptive and unfair practices as well as preserving and accounting for their assets.

According to the FTC complaints, the defendants sent text messages to random phone numbers, including to consumers who do not have a text message subscription plan. As many as 12 percent of mobile phone users fall into this category.

When consumers followed the links included in the unwanted messages, they were directed to sites that collected a substantial amount of personal information, including in some instances health information, before being allowed to continue toward receiving the supposed gift cards. In many cases, the information was requested under the guise of being shipping information for the supposed gift cards. The Commission alleged the information collected was then sold to third parties for marketing purposes, meaning consumers were deceived as to the real use of the information.

Once consumers entered their personal information, they were directed to another site and told they would have to participate in a number of “offers” to be eligible for their gift card. In some cases, consumers were obligated to sign up for as many as 13 of the offers. These offers frequently included recurring subscriptions for which consumers were required to provide credit card information. In other cases, they required consumers to submit applications for credit that would be reflected in their credit reports and possibly affect their credit score. If a consumer completed all of the “offers,” they were then notified that to get the promised gift card, they had to find three others who also would complete the offers.

The FTC alleged that the operators of these sites violated the FTC Act by failing to tell consumers about all the conditions attached to the “free” gift, including the possibility that consumers would actually be required to spend money to receive the gift.

According to the FTC, the defendants who sent the text messages were paid by the operators of the “free” gift websites based on how many consumers eventually entered their information. The operators of the free gift websites were in turn paid by those businesses who gained customers or subscribers through the “offer” process.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the eight complaints was 4-0-1, with former Chairman Jon Leibowitz not participating.

Seven complaints were filed against the alleged senders of the unsolicited text messages containing deceptive promises of free gifts and prizes:

Superior Affiliate Management, a case against five defendants: Ecommerce Merchants, LLC (also doing business as Superior Affiliate Management); Cresta Pillsbury, Jan-Paul Diaz, Joshua Brewer and Daniel Stanitski. This case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.
Rentbro, Inc., a case against three defendants: Rentbro, Inc., Daniel Pessin and Jacob Engel. This case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.
Jason Q. Cruz, a case against one defendant, Jason Q. Cruz (also doing business as Appidemic, Inc.) This case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.
Rishab Verma, a case against two defendants: Verma Holdings, LLC and Rishab Verma. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston.
AdvertMarketing, a case against three defendants: AdvertMarketing, Inc., Scott A. Dalrymple and Robert Jerrold Wence. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston.
Henry Kelly, a case against one defendant, Henry Nolan Kelly. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta.
Seaside Building Marketing, a case against four defendants: Phillip Flora, Sandra Skipper, Kevin Beans and Dakota Geffre (all of whom are also doing business as Seaside Building Marketing Inc. and SB Marketing). This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles.

One complaint was filed against the alleged operators of the deceptive websites to which consumers were directed by the spam text messages:

SubscriberBASE Holdings, Inc., a case against ten defendants: SubscriberBASE Holdings, Inc.; SubscriberBASE, Inc.; Jeffrey French; All Square Marketing, LLC; Threadpoint, LLC; PC Global Investments, LLC; Slash 20, LLC; Brent Cranmer; Christopher McVeigh (also doing business as CMB Marketing, Inc.) and Michael Mazzella (also doing business as Mazzco Marketing, Inc.). This case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.

Marketers of Alleged “Mass Joinder” and “Forensic Loan Audit” Mortgage Relief Services Scams Settle FTC Charges, Agree to Surrender Assets and Halt Deceptive Conduct

The defendants behind an alleged mortgage relief scam have agreed to settle FTC charges that they deceived cash-strapped consumers into believing they could hold onto their homes and reduce their mortgage payments by either suing their mortgage lenders in so-called “mass joinder” lawsuits or buying “forensic loan audits.”

All of the defendants, including two individuals and seven companies, will surrender assets and be prohibited from making deceptive claims about any product or service, and all but one are banned from marketing mortgage- and debt- relief services.

As part of its continuing crackdown on mortgage relief scams, the FTC filed a complaint in 2012 against Santa Ana, California-based Sameer Lakhany and five companies he controlled. The agency later added three more defendants. The defendants allegedly victimized more than a thousand consumers with two related scams.

In the first alleged scam, Lakhany and defendants Brian Pacios, Precision Law Center, Inc., Precision Law Center LLC, National Legal Network, Inc., and Assurity Law Group, Inc., allegedly held themselves out as a specialty law firm called Precision Law Center, making the false promise to consumers that if they sued their lenders along with other homeowners in so-called “mass joinder” lawsuits, they could obtain favorable mortgage concessions from their lenders or stop the foreclosure process. According to the complaint, they charged $6,000 to $10,000 in advance, but failed to follow through with the suits, all of which were dismissed shortly after filing.

The second alleged scam, involving Lakhany and defendants The Credit Shop, LLC, Fidelity Legal Services LLC, and Titanium Realty, Inc., typically charged consumers between $795 and $1,595 for a so-called “forensic loan audit.” The complaint alleged that these defendants falsely portrayed themselves as nonprofit organizations using the domain names “HouseholdRelief.org,” “MyHomeSupport.org,” and “FreeFedLoanMod.org.” They told consumers the loan audits would find lender violations 90 percent of the time or more, and that this would force lenders to give them better mortgage terms. In fact, the complaint alleged that consumers rarely if ever obtained better mortgage terms as a result of these “forensic loan audits.”

The proposed settlements impose judgments reflecting the total consumer injury attributable to the defendants:

The order against Lakhany and the companies he controlled – The Credit Shop, LLC, Fidelity Legal Services LLC, Titanium Realty, Inc., Precision Law Center, Inc., and Precision Law Center LLC – imposes a $3 million redress judgment. The judgment is partially suspended as to Lakhany based on his inability to pay.
The order against Pacios and his company, National Legal Network, Inc., imposes a $1.75 million redress judgment and requires Pacios and the company to turn over virtually all of their known assets, including a Ferrari and two rental properties in Las Vegas owned by Pacios.
The order against Assurity Law Group Inc. requires it to turn over to the FTC all funds it received in connection with the “mass joinder” scam, which amount to $100,000.

The Commission’s ability to provide redress, and the amount provided, will depend on the amount actually collected from the defendants.

The Commission has advice for consumers faced with possible foreclosure on their homes. For more information see the FTC’s consumer information web pages titled: Facing Foreclosure?, Home Loans, and Mass Joinder Lawsuits.

The FTC filed its complaint againt Lakhany and the five companies he controlled on March 5, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On March 22, 2012, it amended the complaint, adding Pacios, National Legal Network Inc., and Assurity Law Group Inc.

The Commission vote approving stipulations for permanent injunction orders to be entered against the defendants was 4-0-1, with Chairman Jon Leibowitz not participating. The proposed orders are subject to court approval. The FTC filed the three separate stipulated orders in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California with defendants: Sameer Lakhany, The Credit Shop, LLC, Fidelity Legal Services LLC, Titanium Realty, Inc., Precision Law Center, Inc., and Precision Law Center LLC; Brian Pacios and National Legal Network, Inc.; and Assurity Law Group, Inc. The orders were entered by the court on March 1, 2013.

NOTE: These stipulations for preliminary injunction orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute admissions by the defendants that the law has been violated. Permanent injunction orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

(FTC File No. 1123136)

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: