Complaint to PA Attorney General regarding PTK GOB sale 2-25-2011 (filed at: http://w w w .attorneygeneral.gov/complaintforms/bcp_form.aspx ) On or about November 7, 2010, PTK Oriental Rug Center [in Lahask a, PA] announced via banners draping its building that it was "Going Out of Business", "Closing Forever", "Entire Inventory Must Go", "Up to 75% OFF Sale", etc. Having experience com bating these fraud [GOB] sales in the past, I notified Solebury Township of the Commonwealth's laws regulating such sales (Act of July 31, 1963, P.L. 410, No.217 AN ACT) and requested that Solebury Township (Bucks County) begin the necessary enforcement per statute and local ordinances governing the activities taking place. On Novem ber 22, 2010, the Solebury Township Solicitor (at that time) Paul Logan notified PT K of the need for "im mediate compliance". One would suppose that the statutory requirement of a 30-60 day limit on the GOB would commence with that notice. No acknowledgment or com pliance by the business has taken place since that date. There is evidence that -- as with most such fraudulent GOB sales -- the business has continued restocking inventory to replace sold items. Additional signage has been added to the building in gross violation of Solebury Township sign regulations. Prom ises of discounts are false relative to prevailing actual prices on item s for sale (Tag prices are artificially high to enable the "up to 75% OFF" discounts.) There is no indication that the GOB is winding down. Apparently the business owners have adopted this as a business model for the location. [It should be noted that PTK has other locations which continue to operate separately from this "GOB" operation. (Som e of those other locations have in prior years had GOB sales in proximity to the now existing stores. A short tim e after completing a GOB the company would reopen in a nearby location under the same name.)] Due to the noncom pliance by the business, Solebury Township has been placed in a situation that could be costly to it in terms of litigation to enforce its regulations. Other businesses along the Routes 202/263 business corridor which includes New Hope, Lahask a (Peddlers Village), Doylestown, Furlong, Jamison, W arrington are directly im pacted by the now illegal activities at PTK. As well, the blatant violation of sign ordinances by the business in trumpeting its fraudulent sale is out of character with the historic, reserved nature of all adjacent businesses and creates a unfair value diminishment in image for those businesses. Also, prompt enforcement by concerned authorities will serve to lim it the invitation these activities might pose to other existing businesses (there are numerous hom e furnishing stores in the area suffering in these difficult economic conditions) to copy this model, in addition to preventing copycat rug dealers who m ight be watching from the sidelines to open stores for the purpose of "closing forever". I spoke with Dennis Carney, the Solebury Township Manager, on Thursday February 24. He related to m e the efforts Solebury Township is making to put a stop to PT K's activities, while bewailing the challenges it faces if the business remains non-compliant. Any assistance that the Comm onwealth's Attorney General's Office can offer to the citizens of Solebury Township and the businesses and comm unities adjacent to it to enforce a cease-and-desist order against PTK and its owners would be appreciated and in the spirit of the regulating statutes. Thank you for your attention to this m atter, and any help you can offer to the Township and all of us impacted by the fraudulent advertising, and activity. Sincerely, Christopher Klinges

Action requested of the business : Comply with state law and local regulation. Cease-and-Desist operations in violation of those regulations. Remove illegal signage. Since the business is beyond the sixty day limit for such sales the operation should summ arily cease. If it is not possible to impose an injunction ordering termination of the activities, a imposition of fines and penalties should be enforced to assure that the cost of continued defiance is not justified by offsetting gains in maintaining the fraudulent sale.