Talk:Usana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
  1. /Archive 1 (May 14, 2007 — August 27, 2007)

Contents

[edit] Comment by Terri Hamel

Dear Sir, Thank you for the notice that I am no longer allowed to post messages on the board. Please tell me who I can contact to dispute the many incorrect allegations in this article, which are currently being countered by USANA in a lawsuit. I sincerely want to follow protocol, but I am concerned that Wikipedia is unintentionally allowing misinformation to be posted here. Would it be possible for me to get your sources? I believe it is important to let your readers know that the person who began the lawsuit, Barry Minkow, is a convicted felon who placed "put" options on USANA's stocks just prior to launching an attack on the company, and then made a significant profit when the stock fell 15% the next day. You might also want to contact USANA directly, as the company has been more than forthcoming with opening their records. I believe that Wikipedia will improve its image by disallowing spurious allegations on its site. Sincerely, Terri Hamel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean314 (talk • contribs) 10 October 2007

Terri, Barry Minkow's former conviction for Fraud as well as his put options have already been listed in this article. What information would you like sources for and which allegations do you feel are incorrect? Also, could you provide more information regarding the "significant profit" Minkow made from his put options? I've been unable to find any specific number anywhere. I should also mention that I am not a Wikipedia moderator, but am instead a simple poster who is looking at expanding this and several other related articles. Jean314 07:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The block was for 31 hours, which has since expired. You are free to discuss matters here or on your talkpage. Please do not, however, edit the article in a manner which is not consistent with consensus. LessHeard vanU 12:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delisting Notification

I am proposing that the NASDAQ delisting notification now be removed from the article as the company filed an ammended 10Q for the second quarter and has since been cleared by NASDAQ to continue to be listed. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by La grenouille (talk • contribs) 22:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it appears to be not uncommon for companies to be notified of delisting pending proper filing I think the notability is such that it can be removed without further comment. LessHeard vanU 13:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The article has been edited accordingly and the external link updated to the ammended 10Q. La grenouille 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Usana to stay in Nasdaq; Q3 earnings rise 7.5%, SL Trib. Removing this story was proper, but I'm concerned that other criticism has been improperly stripped out. Losing a long-time auditor is a big deal and the markets tend to consider it an ominous sign, even if the immediate threat of delisting has passed. Cool Hand Luke 01:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the resignation of Grant Thornton was significant news at the time. But USANA engaged PwC, one of the top four accounting firms in the world (arguably the top firm), despite GT's resignation. Additionally, GT sited no accounting disagreements as reason for their resignation [1] [2]. All said, I would agree that it should be included as historical information, but suggest that the appointment of PwC with a description of the accounting firm's qualifications be included as well. This will depict an accurate account of the current situation. La grenouille 18:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
If there is a source quoting the markets reaction to GT's resignation then that might be permissable - understanding that Wikipedia is not a news service - but changing of auditors and "difficulties" in filing accounts is not unusual. Only if there is some fallout regarding either the resignation, the filing, or subsequent developments does it become an encyclopedic matter. Other sourced criticism of the company, however, should not be removed. LessHeard vanU 20:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Addition to the Article

I haven't been around much, and I think my writing will further demonstrate that. There's an intersting situation regarding this company and allegations that they are illegally operating in China. I threw together a small section about it, but don't want to place it in the main article until after we can come to some sort of agreements as to whether it is NPOV or not (I've been away to long to trust my writing). Here seems like a better place to battle it out, so I'll copy and paste the text below and we can begin going over it. Thank you in advance for your help.Jean314 (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Illegally Operating in China

October 19th, 2007 saw the launch of the Fraud Discovery Institutes website www.cheatinginchina.com which claims to feature evidence of USANA illegally selling products in mainland China. Minkow, a co-founder of the FDA, alleges that hired investigators spoke with several USANA employees in Hong Kong to discuss how citizens from the mainland could bypass Chinese law governing Multi-Level Marketing companies by operating out of Hong Kong, which has separate rules governing its economy.

A phone call which is claimed to be placed with an USANA employee emphasizes the importance of having an account at China Merchant Bank, located in Hong Kong, to set up Chinese distribution lines "[because] we will not send a check." The same employee is also alleged to have said that USANA has 30,000 distributors in the mainland China.

A USANA spokesperson claimed these allegations are without merit and that USANA is not attempting to side step its own strict rules in order to break Chinese law.

Company filings show Hong Kong to be USANAs fastest-growing market with sales increasing by 81% between the second quarters of 2005 and 2006.[Roddy Boyd. "Minkow Accusses USANA of Illegal Sales in China", New York Post, 2007-10-19. ]

[edit] comments

Needs third party sources, not secondary/primary (USANA & FDI) ones, to be included in the article. I should think that the third party sources would need to be impeccable (national newspaper/specialist publication), too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The New York Post is a third-party source. Very tentative headline though MINKOW ACCUSES USANA OF ILLEGAL SALES IN CHINA. Cool Hand Luke 20:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that The New York Post was a good source from which to draw information. I'll supply a link here to the article so those who are more experienced can at least see the story and make suggestions.Jean314 (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10192007/business/minkow_accuses_usana_of_illega.htm

LessHeard vanU, Cool Hand Luke, is there a consensus as to whether the New York Post is considered a third-party source or not? Also, do either of you have further suggestions about what to do with the information from this article?Jean314 (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
From what I have just read I think it may be included as a sentence or two as part of Minkow's actions against USANA. The link doesn't paint Minkow particularly favourably, and it has a USANA rebuttal so... yeah, I agree it could be included. No WP:Undue weight, though. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I consider the Post to be a good third party source typically. But in this case, the author offers no opinion as to the validity of the claims and doesn't appear to have done any due diligence in reviewing Minkow's evidence. Notice that the author says "Minkow claims to have" evidence throughout the entire article, but never suggests that he has seen or validated it himself. Additionally it doesn't appear to have had any serious affect on the stock price or the performance of the company. And no other major publications bothered to report on it. I would argue that the article fails to provide the third party validation we are looking for here.La grenouille (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that it would be inappropriate and dangerous for a reporter to verify such claims until the authorities have reached a conclusion. While I haven't reviewed them to verify, I'm certain any article we have used to make reference to the various lawsuits taking place right now have not stated emphatically which side is correct. If we're waiting for the authors to validate the claims of the parties involved then we'd be required to remove any reference to any legal proceedings currently taking place since, until there's a ruling since, up until that point, they're merely allegations. LessHeard vanU, you suggested we include it as a short addition to Minkow's actions against USANA. Would you be willing to do a re-write and post it here to see if we can reach a consensus?Jean314 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I will have a bash this evening (UK time zone) if nobody else has had a try. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, this is it - and feel free to edit for style and typos

<-- existing text -->In early August, 2007, Forbes reported that through sources the FBI had launched a criminal investigation into Usana [3]. Usana has denied these allegations, stating that they have not been contacted by the FBI and are not aware of such and investigation [4].<-- existing text --> In October 2007 Minkow alleged that USANA is illegally trading in China, which claims the company has denied.{ref}

Unless anything comes of these claims I don't think any more needs saying, the link is sufficient for anyone interested further. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Although I think we should also include a link to the website where these allegations are made as well (www.cheatinginchina.com). (User:Jean314|Jean314]] (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Be bold and insert the other link - if it is reverted we can always discuss the matter here. LessHeard vanU 13:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not revert the edit because I think it would be better to discuss it here prior to messing with the article. I disagree that it should be included as a link in the article. It completely contradicts what we have discussed above by overweighting the article in support of Minkow's opinion and fails to represent an equally weighted opposing view to remain neutral. It is not much different than a USANA supporter linking the article to a pro USANA website. Additionally, the way it is written solely for the sake of including the website is a stretch and is not consistent with the rest of the article. LessHeard had it right. I suggest the following
In October 2007 Minkow alleged that USANA is illegally operating in China. The company denies these claims.{ref} —Preceding unsigned comment added by La grenouille (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thoughts? Does including the Minkow ref give it undue weight, seeing as it is only two sentences, or does it illustrate the claim - the existence of which is given credence by the New York Times link? May I suggest that the FDI link is held pending any development in both the discussion or the matter? (I am assuming that La grenouille has reverted the bold linking, and we are now discussing - even though he has AGF'd by not removing it.)LessHeard vanU 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The inclusion of the link was not to simply weight the article in support of Minkow's opinion, but to provide further information about what the company is being accused of doing. The issue (Minkows allegations) were written about in a legitimate journal and commented on by representatives of USANA which (from what I've learned above when I disagreed with including the supposed FBI investigation) makes it relevent for inclusion. Providing the link offers readers the opportunity to find out more if they're so inclined. Whether or not readers agree with these allegations is up to them, but they should be given the opportunity to find out what those allegations are. Simply stating that USANA has been accussed of "illegally operating" could cause more damage by allowing people to speculate as to the severity of the alleged crimes. Also, further information will help distinguish these allegations from the previous allegation made by Minkow when he accused USANA of being a pyramid scheme. For the purpose of informing the reader I think the link should be included. Jean314 14:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, if La Grenouille cannot give a rebuttal of the argument then it stays in. However, if La Grenouille or anyone else finds a legit link that clarifies or expands the USANA position in this matter - except if it is only more "ex-felon" language - then it can also be included. Agreed? LessHeard vanU 21:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. I have no additional links to contribute to the article in response to these accusations. This is because the matter has obviously not warranted any serious response from the company. The fact that the company answered a couple of questions from the one reporter who found the story news worthy, does not, in my opinion, contribute to the legitimacy of the claims or the need for a direct link to be included in the article. With past allegations made by Minkow, the company responded with a press release. But in this case the news failed to affect the stock and did not merit a serious response from the company. I would settle for the article being included as a reference. And I would still like to see the wording changed. "Minkow alleged through a new Fraud Discovery Inst. website..." is irrelevant and sounds more like a promotion for the Fraud Discovery Institute than information pertaining to USANA. "Minkow alleged..." is sufficient.La grenouille (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Speculating on how seriously the company takes these charges doesn't really get us anywhere since it's merely speculation. None of us here have been hired to speak for USANA, so we have no idea how they've reacted to this news. I'm not trying to promote the Fraud Discovery Institute, but instead I'm trying to put this into context. These allegations are not coming from Minkow as an individual, but are instead from an organization he co-founded and heads which have been involved in assisting law enforcement prosecute and convict several fraudulent companies. Representing this information as thought it was merely coming from a private citizen would leave out relevant context. Are any claims made in the news related to this company required to have an outcome on their stock price for inclusion? I don't understand why the stock price is relevant in this matter. Please, clarify.Jean314 (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I only mentioned the company's level of response to the allegations because you used it as support to include it in the article, "The issue were written about in a legitimate journal and commented on by representatives of USANA which (from what I've learned above when I disagreed with including the supposed FBI investigation) makes it relevant for inclusion.". I fail to see how the company's vague response to the Post makes it relevant for inclusion, same as you and I disagreed with the inclusion of the FBI allegation. In regards to the FDI and Minkow, it is difficult if not impossible to draw a line between him as an individual and the institution. From what I can see, the only difference between the two is the fact that Minkow took a short position in the stock, and the Institution did not. To now pretend that Minkow's short position is irrelevant by pretending that it is the institution making the claims rather than Minkow, detracts from the facts. Which brings us around to the stock price. A decline in stock price would not only mean more money in Minkow's pocket, but would also demonstrate the markets' response to the news. The fact that the stock showed no significant change as a result of the news, supports my argument that it is irrelevant and hardly worth including in the article. If I am not mistaken, the affects on the stock price were an important matter when we discussed the relevance of his original report. Why would they not now be similarly important. Please clarify.La grenouille (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
A company’s response to allegations was stated as being an important part for inclusion previously by posters who know more about the rules and regulations of Wikipedia then I. Whether or not it is "vague" is irrelevant. They've denied the claims to make their position known making this topic worthy enough to note. No one is making the claim that Minkow's short position is irrelevant because these claims are being made through an institution he co-founded and runs. In fact, we're not talking about his short positions at all. The "investigation" is being conducted through his business, Fraud Discovery Institute, and it should be recorded as such. As for why the stock price was previously relevant, it was because we were discussing it in regards to lawsuits being brought against USANA and Minkow which were related to declines in the stock price. The stock price itself was not considered grounds for inclusion, but was information supporting other additions to this article. The same relevancy does not seem to apply. How would a decline in the stock price add legitimacy to whether or not we should include a reference to the FDI and a link to the article in the New York Post? Please, clarify.Jean314 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Although our discussions typically yield better results, it is clear that we may not reach the consensus we are searching for in this case. Perhaps we can begin to look for ways to agree, and agree to disagree on these points. I am proposing that the link be included in the article, but that the sentence be written differently. Here is what I propose
In October 2007 Minkow alleged that USANA is illegally operating in mainland China. The company denied these claims.[5] [Post ref] La grenouille (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I had read your proposal when you first suggested it LessHeard vanU. If your concern is the over promotion of Minkow’s company may I suggest we not mention its name directly? Given your previous additions I would have thought that you would have agreed with posting such information because it demonstrates that there is a financial motivation for Minkow by engaging in these allegations against USANA. As I’ve said before, by omitting this information I feel that readers will interpret Minkows actions as a private citizen fighting for a cause when, in actual fact, matters such as this are a source of income for him (FDI is For-Profit). Also, this is not the first time his company has engaged in such a campaign. Here is what I suggest.
In October 2007 Minkow alleged through his company’s website that USANA is illegally operating in mainland China. USANA has denied these allegations.” Jean314 (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I can live with the sentence above. You are right, the article should be clear that the FDI is a for-profit organization. This would allow us to include the name and to avoid such drawn out discussions moving forward. As of now, it is only clear that Minkow is gaining financially from his short position. Would you have a suggestion for making the addition to the article? The inclusion of the information should most appropriately be noted earlier in the article where the FDI is first mentioned. It could really be as simple as, The Fraud Discover Institute, a for-profit oranization........You're thoughts? If you think it deserves more attention, we may want to start a new thread to discuss this. You're probably as tired of scrolling through this one as I am. La grenouille (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FDI Reference

How much Minkow has profited from his put options is something I've been trying to find out, but have yet to get any clear picture of. The only references I've seen so far state that he didn't even manage to cover the cost of his investigation because he bought too late. Also, it would appear that shorting of USANA stock is no longer allowed. All that aside, I would agree with your phrasing provided the intent of the organization is also referenced.

"Barry Minkow, co-founder of the Fraud Discovery Institute, a for profit organization which investigates charges of fraud...."

Something to that effect. Of course, it still needs to be worked in that these investigations etc. are being done through the FDI as opposed to by an individual. This is intended to be set into place at the first reference to Barry Minkow and the initial report submitted to the Wall Street Journal.Jean314 (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The stock is still available to short. It may be expensive, but people are still selling the stock short. It is clear that there is some serious naked short selling taking place with this stock. Just take a look at the short interest compared to the available float. Additionaly, there are still put options for sale, which is one way to take a short position in the stock (this was how Minkow shorted the stock originally). What do you have that indicates otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by La grenouille (talk • contribs) 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This is sort of off topic since I don't think we're discussing putting anything related to this in the article, but there was a financial web-site which listed it as being unable to be shorted, or restricted, or something to that effect. I wasn't very interested in the topic since it didn't seem to fit in anywere, so it is very possible I misunderstood.Jean314 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lawsuit Dismissal

A lawsuit which was being brought against USANA in Utah was dropped today. This lawsuit hasn't been mentioned in the article (We've only provided information regarding the lawsuit in California). Does anyone have links to information regarding when the Utah lawsuit started? Belows is a link to its dismissal http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/01/03/ap4490601.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean314 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I spoke to soon, it turns out this lawsuit wasn't against the company, but against a chairperson/director brought about by shareholders.Jean314 (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


LAW SUITS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED

Reuters told us so: http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUKBNG13838520080111?symbol=USNA.O

Can we please get rid of those nonsense comments, now, in the text. All class action law suits were dismissed, because the judge found no indicators that USANA conducted in any wrong doings.Markburger83 (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wall Street Journal January 11 article information

I wanted to provide oportunity to discuss additions I made to the article today in regards to information provided by the WSJ January 11 article. The additions are clear and stick to the facts provided in the print version of the the Journal. Perhaps there is a better place for, or better way to state these facts? La grenouille (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that the detail regarding Minkow more properly should be in his article; in Usana it is enough to indicate that he had a financial interest in the effect on share prices created by the report so as to balance the claims which reflect poorly upon the company. As far as the Wall Street Journal reports regarding the investigations... relevant and appropriate, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest and page protection

Perhaps the page Usana should be protected, firstly so to stem the flow of any vandalism, and secondly to prevent IP's registered to the company, and other IP addresses that might happen to vandalize the article, from editing it and providing a one-sided view of the subject in question (violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If one's to check the edit history, there's even a user named "USANA1" (sole edit made 14/15 January 2008); note that USANA1's only edit (see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account).

So, should it be protected? Qwerty (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs protection. The NPOV question is very well dealt with and the major editors on this article have previously dealt with vandalism appropriately and it doesn't get a lot - really. With Wikiscanner you can easily determine if a batch of vandalism is coming from the company, and that isn't the sort of info the company needs having available via Google - which trawls talk pages as well as article space. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean semi-protection? Cool Hand Luke 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparative Guide - Should its reference be removed?

From what I've been reading on-line the Comparative Guide isn't a peer reviewed journal and a number of those that contributed to its analysis are related to USANA in one way or another. Since it is not an independent analysis should its reference be removed from the article? I'm asking because I don't think the article should include references to biased periodicals/magazines etc. Also, there has been some judgements granted in the case of USANA vs. Minkow that should probably be updated soon. I've only found references to these updates on personal blogs of people related to the story so I'm waiting until I can find a better source.Jean314 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of better sources... I suggest keeping them. Provided that the source data is considered legit I don't see the harm. Independent third parties may be reporting Minkow, but there is a question of whether his information isn't biased. As usual, its a question of finding the right balance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure which issue you're referring too. The Comparative Guide or the Court Judgement. For the sake of keeping this simple lets just stick with the Comparative Guide for the time being. Its reference in the article is only a minor one, but my concern is that it is mis-leading and gives them impression that an independent peer-reviewed journal has tested USANAs products.Jean314 (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Just the comparative guide; if there are no better references then adding that the guide may or is not be independent would suffice in the meantime.
Re the judgements, citing reliable third party sources is always best since it gives an indication of how serious they are considered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the comment regarding the dispute over the independence of the publication due to lack of reliable third party sources. My search for an article in a reputable paper or other reliable source that documents this dispute yielded nothing. La grenouille (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The complaints have been made, for the most part, in on-line forums and have surround several individuals and their connections to USANA. For example
Dr. Ray Strand is on USANAs Advisory Board

http://www.usana.com/dotCom/company/ag/mab

Dr. Ray Strand Helped develop the Blended Standard used in the Comparativve Guide

http://www.diversehealth.net/products/comparative-guide.html

An official complaint was published by a competitor and responded to by the comparative guide, but the original complaint has since been removed from the web. Here is The Comparative Guides Response http://www.comparativeguide.com/melaleuca.html
If you would like to suggest a re-wording of the sentence I'd be happy to hear it. We could take off from LessHeards example and say something like "the guide may or may not be independent."Jean314 (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Just "...may not be independent..." should suffice. While the credibility may be questionable, it depends if the information contained is sufficiently noteworthy and otherwise unavailable. That is the only criteria for inclusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Decline? 11.1 to or from 11.06

There are two "froms" where there needs to be one, plus a "to". I can guess which goes where, but sometimes an increase which is below the rate of inflation is regarded as a net decline as the value of the income is less, and it would be best if it were sorted by the editor concerned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] references 3 & 4

I note that reference 3 is a Forbes report on USANA, and reference 4 is a news report of the Forbes report. I don't think we need both, but which one should go? The primary report is more detailed than the secondary report - I would use the Forbes report. Any opinions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you already answered your own question. If one is to go it should be the secondary report in the National Business Review. There have been new developments in the Court case of USANA v. Minkow. Does anyone care to update the article? I'm unable to do it at the moment. Here is the link.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3249326
Additionally there is no reference in the USANA article on Wikipedia to the defamation suit they brought against Minkow and later dropped. I think this is worthy of inclusion if someone has the time.Jean314 (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll see if La grenouille is around to post regarding the link - I try not to post new content to keep myself "uninvolved". As for USANA dropping the defamation suit; a dropped case is not notable of itself (there can be any number of reasons why it was dropped) but might be mentioned in passing in the general matter of USANA vs. Minkow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)