Last October the FTC filed a motion asking Judge Tuchi to “clarify or reconsider” the
Vemma preliminary injunction
.

Specifically, the FTC sought to ‘
enjoin Defendant Tom Alkazin from engaging in certain business activities.
‘

The FTC argued that while the court intentionally excluded Alkazin ‘
from the injunctive provisions relating to pyramid marketing
‘, it might have

unintentionally excluded him from the provisions related to deceptive income claims, furnishing materials that contain false or misleading representations, and submitting new marketing or sales material to the FTC for review before publishing.

In addition to requesting the court clarify if this was the case, the FTC also asked it to

reconsider its finding and ruling as to Defendant Alkazin’s injunctive liability for marketing a pyramid scheme based on his participation in (rather than control of) the scheme, and place him under the provisions of Section I.A of the Order.

Inclusion of Section I.A of the order would see Alkazin subject to the same restrictions as Vemma and BK Boreyko.

Now, roughly eight months after the FTC filed their motion, Judge Tuchi has finally ruled on the matter.

Acknowledging that Alkazin (right) ‘did not oppose the FTC’s request’, the court granted the FTC’s motion with respect to ‘
deceptive income claims, furnishing materials that contain false or misleading representations, and submitting new marketing or sales material to the FTC for review before publishing
‘.

With respect to the FTC’s motion on Section I.A of the preliminary injunction;

Mr. Alkazin again did not oppose the FTC’s request and the Court again agrees with the FTC’s analysis.

Accordingly, the Court will grant the FTC’s Motion, and Mr. Alkazin will be subject to the injunctive provisions contained in Sections I.A through I.E of the Preliminary Injunction Order.

As it stands, Tom Alkazin is now subject to the same restrictions as Vemma and Boreyko.

Alkazin was quick oppose Judge Tuchi’s decision, through an emergency motion filed the same day as the order.

In his motion, Alkazin asks the court to vacate its order. Explaining why he didn’t file a response, Alkazin’s attorney writes

Mr. Alkazin did not file a response to that motion because, pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(g), “[n]o response to a motion for reconsideration . . . may be filed unless ordered by the Court, but no motion for reconsideration may be granted unless the Court provides the opportunity for response.”

Mr. Alkazin was never ordered to file, and thus was not permitted to file, a response to the FTC’s motion.

Considering Judge Tuchi explicitly wrote ‘
Mr. Alkazin did not oppose the 
FTC’s request, which prompts its summary disposition,
and in any 
event the Court agrees with the FTC’s analysis
‘, Alkazin’s lack of opposition appears to be a moot point.

Alkazin is also claims the decision to wholly include him in the Vemma preliminary injunction is ‘
a substantial expansion of existing law
‘.

Mr. Alkazin t

🤖 Quick Answer

What preliminary injunction was issued against Tom Alkazin in the Vemma case?
The FTC obtained a preliminary injunction against Tom Alkazin prohibiting him from engaging in deceptive income claims, furnishing false marketing materials, and submitting new sales content without FTC approval. However, the injunction intentionally excluded him from pyramid marketing provisions, which the FTC later sought to clarify and reconsider.

🔗 Related Articles

- Nasgo hitches itself to Ryze unregistered securities opp
- Iyovia collapses (again), business operations suspended
- FTC seeks coercive incarceration & default in Iyovia case
- Benjamin Reynolds served, CFTC to file for default
- Massachusetts charge TelexFree as “billion dollar Ponzi”