winner69
16-07-2006, 10:25 AM
Zenith Corporation, the marketers of Body Enhancer which didn't actually result in an enhanced body or weight loss have been fined nearly $800,000 for false claims.
What makes 'false claims'?
Wonder if the 'claims' made by the promoters (ie marketers) of the Feltex IPO were false?
After all the offer was built around a story of ongoing riches (the 'promised' dividend yield was good) as a result of Feltex making heaps more money post the IPO
The basis of their promise (financially) was a 10% sales increase from 2003 to 2005 along with a 50% increase in EBITDA margins (ie, 66% increase in EBITDA)
Does beg the question ... is there much difference (morally, ethically or whatever) between promoting a 'body enhancer' that didn't work and a 'riches enhancer' based on projections that were totally ill founded (IMO).
The judge made some interesting comments (quote from NZ Herald) like Zenith's actions were a "cynical pursuit of profit" by owners Sylvia and Winston Gallot, who were "intelligent, scientifically literate people" and well aware of the need for it to be properly trialled before such claims could be made.
And then the Commerce Commission chair said Zenith now needed to come clean and admit it did not work.
Just some thoughts on a Sunday morning
About the Zenith case
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=00017C3B-3F1D-14B6-ABBF83027AF1010E
Disc: Did not participate in IPO. Had one short trade in FTX as outlined in another thread. Never lost any money from FTX shares .... or bought any "Body Enhancer'
What makes 'false claims'?
Wonder if the 'claims' made by the promoters (ie marketers) of the Feltex IPO were false?
After all the offer was built around a story of ongoing riches (the 'promised' dividend yield was good) as a result of Feltex making heaps more money post the IPO
The basis of their promise (financially) was a 10% sales increase from 2003 to 2005 along with a 50% increase in EBITDA margins (ie, 66% increase in EBITDA)
Does beg the question ... is there much difference (morally, ethically or whatever) between promoting a 'body enhancer' that didn't work and a 'riches enhancer' based on projections that were totally ill founded (IMO).
The judge made some interesting comments (quote from NZ Herald) like Zenith's actions were a "cynical pursuit of profit" by owners Sylvia and Winston Gallot, who were "intelligent, scientifically literate people" and well aware of the need for it to be properly trialled before such claims could be made.
And then the Commerce Commission chair said Zenith now needed to come clean and admit it did not work.
Just some thoughts on a Sunday morning
About the Zenith case
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=00017C3B-3F1D-14B6-ABBF83027AF1010E
Disc: Did not participate in IPO. Had one short trade in FTX as outlined in another thread. Never lost any money from FTX shares .... or bought any "Body Enhancer'