JRjr33 Inc (JRJRQ)

[onemessageonly]

PART 1:The mary Kay, CVSL, Richmont connection explained.

Let's start with a brief from the Richmont Holding's website:

"Mr. Rochon was the architect of Mary Kay’s management-led leveraged buyout in 1985, arranging the financing and executing the transaction. That LBO is regarded as one of the most successful in business history. During the following 16 years, the company’s retail revenue grew from $500 million to almost $3 billion and Mary Kay became the world's best-selling brand of skin care & color cosmetics. Mr. Rochon became vice chairman in 1987 and chairman and CEO in 1991."

He remained in that position until the summer of 2001, when Mary kay's son, Richard Rogers, filled that role. It led to many key executives leaving(Rochon being one of them), and began the process of divesting the portfolio of Richmont. Richmont was thought by many to be the parent of Mary kay. It was merely part of Mary Kay, a very important part.

Review the key management of Mary Kay and Richmont here(circa 2001):

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83345270

Review these partial snips of the old Richmont.com site here(note some prior holdings in the portfolio as well):

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83347084

A very good article explaing the ups and downs between John Rochon and Richard Rogers here:

http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/2004/03/01/Not_So_Pretty_In_Pink.aspx

You should take note of that second LBO that was being prepared prior to him leaving. The relationship between Richmont and Mary Kay/Rogers never actually ended, it merely changed. Of particular interest is a trust dispute among heirs of the Mary Kay estate.

Look at this brief here:

"Rogers's next category addresses partnerships and corporations other than Mary Kay, and he complains these entities are not relevant to the suit, charging that “only one of which is even mentioned in [Kerr's] Petition.” Rogers has not pointed us to any authority, and we are unaware of any, that requires discoverable sources to be specifically named in the requesting party's pleading. Kerr has pleaded, as an “example” of Rogers's self-dealing, allegations of one of these entities (Richmont Properties, Ltd.) purchasing the Mary Kay headquarters building under terms that may have enriched Rogers or his family at the expense of Mary Kay, whose stock is the primary asset of Kerr's trusts. Kerr argues that as her trustee, Rogers had the obligation to put the trusts' interests before his own. Kerr also alleges that the Mary Kay entities own part of Richmont Properties through another partnership. She argues all these various entities are similarly interrelated."

The properties mentioned are here:

http://www.city-data.com/dallas-county/D/Dallas-Parkway-38.html

If you look in the Ibox, you will notice New Arrow Corporation, attached to Richmont Capital I, and Richmont capit II, as well as New Arrow Corp II(not shown). The officers attached to new Arrow are currently the Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Vice President of Corporate Accounting and Treasury....for Mary Kay.

Refer here:

http://www.marykay.com/en-US/about-mary-kay/pressroom/pages/executive-bios.aspx

Things are fluid in corporate business. Just understand that Richmont Properties is the owner of the Mary Kay main building. The relationship stands, and it appears that Richmont is invested with Mary Kay. I say this because of the evidence provided, while also noting that this is being provided by the investment page on the Richmont Holdings web site(investment page).

"Mary Kay Inc.: Global cosmetics company; Mr. Rochon was the author of its successful LBO; with Mr. Rochon as chairman, it expanded to 37 countries worldwide, became a leading Internet commerce engine and grew to become a multi-billion dollar direct sales business."

Not past tense, and a bit vague(maybe), but again, I look at new Arrow Corp, and the property owned. I also refer to Mrs. Kerr's lawsuit noting where she wanted to sell her non voting preferred stock. This is where it gets interesting. Mary kay had five children(two from a previous marriage). Richard Rogers siblings are deceased. His brother passed away last year(2012). I believe he(Richard Rogers) owned roughly 20% of the stock around 2004 out of the roughly 900,000 shares. But let's look at this in a business sense. Who gets Mary Kay after Richard Rogers(ie retirement)? Maybe the heirs and upper management, but who would be the best candidate to carry on? That leads us to some speculation(speculation only) with regards to this , more importantly, an extended time line as to a possible direction for the future. This is the first part to provide some background. Very important to understand the difference between speculation and factual evidence. There should be no dispute regarding the connections between Richmont and Mary Kay evidenced by the ownership of the mary Kay main building(at the least). The second part to follow later today.