Ivy Capital Inc.
The FTC alleged that Ivy Capital and co-defendants took more than $130 million while misrepresenting an internet business coaching program and its earning potential. Ivy Capital and most defendants settled, and the FTC later issued refunds.
Resolved. Refunded, settled, ceased operating, or the claim did not hold up. Kept for the record.
Identity
Published so you can confirm this entry refers to the party you are checking, and not to somebody who shares a name.
- Registrations
- FTC v. Ivy Capital, Inc. (FTC case 102-3218, 2011)
- Jurisdictions
- United States (federal)
Ivy Capital settled business coaching charges
The FTC alleged that Ivy Capital Inc. and co-defendants sold a program that was supposed to help consumers build internet businesses. According to the FTC, most consumers paid between $2,000 and $20,000 for the program and related products and services, received very little in return, and had difficulty obtaining refunds after canceling. A 2014 release said Ivy Capital and 29 co-defendants allegedly took more than $130 million from consumers who believed they could earn as much as $10,000 per month.
The FTC complaint, filed in February 2011 against 40 defendants, charged misrepresentations about the coaching program, its earning potential, goods and services, and refund practices. A court halted the businesses and froze assets while the case was pending.
Ivy Capital and most defendants agreed to settle. The orders banned covered defendants from selling business coaching programs and restricted misrepresentations, refund practices, Telemarketing Sales Rule violations, and the use of customer information. A $130 million judgment against listed corporate defendants, including Ivy Capital, was suspended when those defendants surrendered all assets. The full amount would become due if they misrepresented their financial condition.
In September 2014, the FTC said it was mailing more than $4.4 million to 2,004 consumers harmed by the Ivy Capital operation. The release said recipients would receive more than 55 percent of the amount they lost.
What is not established
The consent judgments were for settlement purposes only and did not constitute an admission of a law violation. The releases do not state an exact cash payment ordered from Ivy Capital under the suspended judgment.
Sources
Every claim above rests on one of these. Open them and check.
- Enforcement action January 17, 2013
- Enforcement action September 19, 2014
Right of reply
If you are named here and something is wrong, dispute this entry. There is no charge, the route never expires, and your response is published unedited.
Other coaching & business opportunity entries
See all coaching & business opportunity entries, or browse the full record.
First recorded January 17, 2013 · Last updated September 19, 2014