Richard C. Neiswonger
A federal court twice held Richard C. Neiswonger in contempt in connection with an earlier order governing business opportunity promotions and a later $3.2 million judgment. A final settlement required asset transfers and dismissal of appeals.
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. Richard C. Neiswonger (Civ. No. 4:96CV2225SNLJ)
- Locations
- Las Vegas
- Jurisdictions
- United States (federal)
Contempt orders enforced an earlier business opportunity judgment
A Federal Trade Commission release describes a series of orders involving Richard C. Neiswonger and business opportunity promotions. A 1997 court order prohibited Neiswonger, business partner William S. Reed, and their firm, Asset Protection Group, Inc., from deceptively promoting business opportunities and from failing to disclose material facts to consumers.
In April 2007, a federal district court held Neiswonger, Reed, and Asset Protection Group in civil contempt for violating that earlier order. The court banned Neiswonger from selling business opportunities to consumers and from telemarketing. It also entered a $3.2 million judgment against him, described in the release as the amount of his ill-gotten gains. If he did not pay in full, he was required to transfer title to his Las Vegas home to a receiver within 20 days.
The release states that Neiswonger did not make the payment. In September 2009, the district court held him in contempt a second time and ordered him to turn over title to the house or face jail.
Under the final settlement order, Neiswonger agreed to surrender the house, valued at more than $1 million, and dismiss related appeals. A court-appointed receiver was directed to sell the property to help pay the judgment. The FTC had previously obtained his $379,000 retirement account for the same purpose. The order was filed in January 2011 and entered by the court.
What is not established
The release states that stipulated final orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission of a law violation.
Sources
Every claim above rests on one of these. Open them and check.
- Enforcement action February 9, 2011
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 February 9, 2011 · Last updated February 9, 2011