Thursday, 10 April 2008

Amway to be wound up in the UK? Possibly...

From the London Gazette.
Click here for the original.

Date: 8 November 2007 Issue Number: 58506 Page number: 16248

Publication Date: Thursday, 8 November 2007

Notice Code: 2450

Petitions to Wind Up (Companies)

In the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Companies Court No 2651 of 2007

In the Matter of AMWAY (UK) LIMITED

and in the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986

A Petition to wind up the above-named Company of St Anne’s House, Caldecotte Lake Drive, Caldecotte Business Park, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire MK7 8JU, presented on 11 April 2007 by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whose address for service is the Treasury Solicitor, One Kemble Street, London WC2B 4TS, will be heard at The Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL, on Monday 19 November 2007 at 1030 hours (or as soon thereafter as the Petition can be heard).

Any person intending to appear on the hearing of the Petition (whether to support or oppose it) must give notice of intention to do so to the Petitioners or their Solicitor in accordance with Rule 4.16 by 1600 hours on 16 November 2007.


The Petitioners’ Solicitor is the Treasury Solicitor, of One Kemble Street, London WC2B 4TS. (Ref LT6/2859A/JAR.)

(387053)

at

3 comments:

  1. Anonymous10 April 2008 at 16:40

    More details if you do a search on
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk for amway.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous13 November 2008 at 00:14

    Hi,
    It's probably worth noting that Amway won this case, though the judge did request Amway maintain some of the changes they implemented earlier in the year in response to BERR concerns. The major issue as I see it was the same as what happened with FTC vs Amway in the US in the 1970s. Amway won the case, but was effectively found "guilty" of not properly monitoring what their independent reps do and say, and therein lies the problem.

    BERR has appealed the case, but AFAIK no hearing date as yet been set and Amway UK is back in full operations, though ABOs are understandably still reticent to become fully committed again until the case is finally over.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Richard Harriman13 November 2008 at 16:27

    Let's get this straight.
    Amway did NOT "win this case" and to suggest so is a deception, or at least a misunderstanding.
    The case was, in fact, conditionally dismissed.
    Amway were required, as part of the dismissal to adhere to five conditions which the case summary outlines at length.
    They were also required to supply the Court with comprehensive details of the financial structure of their business model.
    Amway is also NOT "back in full operations". Instead it's operations are severely curtailed and are being closely monitored by the authorities.
    Amway in the UK is very much "on probation" and rightly so.

    ReplyDelete