Federal Trade Commission v. Affordable Media, LLC
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
179 F.3d 1228 (1999)
Denyse and Michael Anderson (defendants) formed Financial Growth Consultants, LLC (Financial) (defendant) to sell media units to investors with the promise that investors would receive a fifty percent return on their investment. The media units were a share of the profits from products sold on late night television, which Financial sold through telemarketing, but not enough of the products could be sold to match the promised returns. Typical of a Ponzi scheme, Financial made up for the media units’ profit shortfalls by paying the profits promised to earlier investors with the investments of later investors. Of the $13,000,000 raised from investors, Financial retained $6,300,000 in commissions. The Federal Trade Commission (plaintiff) brought an action for injunctive relief that required the Andersons, who had placed their assets in an asset protection trust they created in the Cook Islands, to repatriate all assets held outside the United States “(1) by them, (2) for their benefit; or (3) under their direct or indirect control.” After the court issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the Andersons, the Andersons sent a letter to their co-trustee, asking for an accounting and repatriation of the assets. The co-trustee denied the request claiming that the request constituted “duress” under the provisions of the trust and removed the Andersons as co-trustees. The Andersons claimed that this rendered them incapable of complying with the injunction. The district court held the Andersons in civil contempt for failing to comply with the court’s order and had them taken into custody after determining following a hearing that the Andersons retained control over the trust. Under the trust terms, the Andersons were “protectors” of the trust. As protectors, the Andersons could determine whether an event of duress had occurred and could have overruled the co-trustee by certifying that that in their opinion no event of duress had occurred. The Andersons appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Wiggins, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 173,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.