SISEL RESPONDS TO NEWAYS’ CLAIMED "VICTORY"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

SISEL RESPONDS TO NEWAYS’ CLAIMED "VICTORY"

Salem, Utah, February 18, 2008-Contrary to a February 14, 2008 Neways press release, a recent order from a federal court in Utah represents no significant victory for Neways in its efforts to block SISEL's competitive threat in U.S. courts, with lawyers, rather than on the streets of Japan, with superior products. The shallowness of Neways' claimed victory is evident by a comparison of what it sought with what it got:

• Neways sought a sweeping order prohibiting SISEL from soliciting Neways distributors indefinitely. The court flatly denied this request and refused to enjoin SISEL from soliciting Neways distributors at all. Neways can no longer argue that SISEL is in any way prohibited from soliciting or signing up Neways distributors who seek a new opportunity.
  
  
• Neways also sought a court order prohibiting six SISEL distributors (who are former Neways distributors) from soliciting current Neways distributors for one year from the date of the court's order.
  
  
  • The court dismissed one of those distributors even before its February 11 order, leaving no limitation on that distributor's recruiting activities for SISEL.
  • In its order, the court refused to grant any of Neways' requested relief as to two of those distributors who were subject only to Neways' "Wisdom Manual" of policies and procedures, finding them free to recruit Neways distributors because their Neways distributorships have terminated.
  • The court found the other three distributors to be subject to Neways' less-frequently used, and older, international distributor agreement that prohibits cross-recruiting for one year after termination. The court nevertheless refused to grant Neways' request prohibiting recruiting of Neways distributors for one year after the date of the order. Instead the court's order limited those distributors' recruiting of Neways distributors (but not their work in continuing to build their SISEL businesses otherwise) only until March 9, 2008 (for one distributor) and May 18, 2008 (for the other two distributors). These distributors may still, however, cross-recruit Neways distributors who are family members or who are in their respective Neways front-lines.
• Finally, Neways sought a broad order of the court requiring SISEL and its distributors named in the suit to return to Neways information in their possession relating to the names, contact information, sales volume or relative success of any current or former Neways distributor and prohibiting them from using such information. In the court hearing, SISEL told the court that neither SISEL nor its named distributors need such information and offered to search their records for such information and return it to Neways. The court therefore ordered that SISEL and its named distributors do what they voluntarily offered to do: search for information, return it, not keep copies, and not use it.

"It is revealing that Neways is so desperate to portray this interim court order, which really granted far less than Neways requested, as an unqualified victory," said Tom Mower, Jr., CEO of SISEL. "We obviously have a different view: this order is a speed bump for SISEL. We see it for what it is - a small part of a transparent attempt to thwart our competitive threat by litigation bullying," he continued. "For our part, SISEL will compete the old fashioned way - with innovative, life-improving products and exciting business opportunities."

Darick Mower, President of SISEL, added, "We at SISEL are gratified the court refused to restrict SISEL from recruiting Neways distributors. People can make their own decisions about which company to join. When they compare, we feel the clear choice will be SISEL."

---

SISEL Contact:
Phil Hadfield
SISEL International
(801) 423-5050
info@siselinternational.com

PR Contacts:
Cheryl Snapp Conner and Jamie Kaneko
Snapp Conner PR
801 994-9625
Cheryl@snappconner.com and jamie@snappconner.com