The Success By Health asset-freeze appears to be hanging by a thread.

For now at least, a decision has been made to maintain the asset freeze and appointed Success by Health Receivership.

The Success by Health defendants had hoped to have the asset freeze lifted following the
Supreme Court’s AMG decision
back in April.

The FTC
secured an asset freeze and appointment of a Success by Health Receiver
under FTC Act rule 13(b).

As per the AMG Supreme Court ruling, the FTC can no longer seek monetary relief under rule 13(b).

Following the AMG decision, the Arizona District Court

issued an order requiring the parties to file a joint memorandum setting forth their views on “whether the asset freeze and receivership in this action should be modified or vacated in light of AMG Capital.”

Those memorandums were filed, and the court held a subsequent hearing on the matter.

As per a filed June 15th order, the court came close to ending the asset-freeze and dissolving the Receivership.

Judge Lanza expressed concerns over jurisdiction;

If I were either persuaded that I currently have jurisdiction or if some steps were taken in the future to return jurisdiction to me, my tentative view is, if the case were in front of me right now, I would dissolve the asset freeze as it pertains to the individual defendants.

The issue is a an appeal by the Success by Health defendants filed
prior
to the AMG decision.

Ironically the appeal is against an earlier decision, denying a motion seeking to dissolve the the preliminary injunction now at issue.

As to the Success by Health Receivership in place;

The Court also explained that, assuming the jurisdictional issues were satisfactorily resolved, it would consider “allowing the receivership to remain in place in this case,” because the relevant legal authorities support “the concept that in general a receiver to prevent future harm is still permissible post AMG Capital,” but would also consider dissolving the receivership because “there might be other tools at my disposal to prevent consumers from continuing to be harmed short of having a receiver to stay in place.”

In an effort to resolve jurisdiction concerns, the court

authorized the Individual Defendants “to file a motion to ask (the court) to dissolve or modify the preliminary injunction and receivership.

The Individual Defendants did not quite comply with this invitation.

Instead, on May 21, 2021, they filed a memorandum (not a motion) entitled “The Effect of AMG Capital Management on this Case.”

In their response to the memorandum, the FTC pointed out Success by Health’s memorandum
‘not styled as a motion and does not include a proposed order’
.

Nonetheless, the FTC argued
‘that the memorandum may be treated as a motion despite these shortcomings’. 
In their response the FTC treated the memorandum like a motion, objecting to it
‘on the merits for an array of reasons’
.

In another self-goal filed by Success by Health, they;

fault(ed) the FTC fo

🤖 Quick Answer

What is the current status of the Success By Health asset freeze following the AMG Supreme Court decision?

The asset freeze and receivership remain in place pending further court review. Although the AMG ruling eliminated the FTC's ability to seek monetary relief under FTC Act section 13(b), the Arizona District Court has not yet vacated these measures, instead requiring parties to file arguments on whether modifications are warranted.

Why did Success By Health defendants challenge the asset freeze?

The defendants sought to lift the freeze based on the April AMG Supreme Court decision, which restricted the FTC's authority to obtain monetary relief under section 13(b). They argued this ruling undermined the legal basis for maintaining the existing freeze and receivership order.

What procedural step has the court taken regarding the freeze's validity?

The Arizona District Court ordered both parties to submit a joint memorandum detailing their positions on whether the asset freeze and receivership

🔗 Related Articles

- Vemma still losing money, losses in decline
- AladinCoin Review: AIC Ponzi points scheme
- Phil Ming Xu sentenced in WCM777 Ponzi case
- EvoRich’s Khovratov still in prison, criminal case pending
- From Divvee to Nui to Mintage Mining unregistered securities?