Alpha, from day 0, never owned the chips or the design, hence had no physical or mythical asset.
They originally contracted a design team to create a design, which was then provided to the wafer entity. The design failed. They re-contracted, this time with the investor, who then took ownership of the product. This was all discovered back in July. Alpha again, never owned the end product. They're essentially outsourcing absolutely everything and are re-selling it to individuals once they purchase it, and by purchasing it this means paid in full by their customers.
If they fail to purchase it, the investor keeps the end product, whatever quantity is unsold. That's not illegal. They literally took a 100% hands-off approach, and explained this months ago.
My proposition is partially inferential, partially substantiated and one dash of calculated guesswork. But it's the only method (thus far proposed) which keeps them solvent and out of major legal issues. Anyone who wants more proof of my theory can obtain their public holdings report. It doesn't have any record of the investor's $2m/usd handoff (as of August), and that's because the investor is acting as the missing link which Alpha purchases from in the end.
If I'm wrong, that's fine, I'm merely proposing what I've seen done before with other startups and middle-man ventures, based on apparent evidence.
As to the elder, I believe he left because he has an ethical and moral conscience, especially considering his history with religious and educational relationships, business and otherwise. He has a solid history of work.
They originally contracted a design team to create a design, which was then provided to the wafer entity. The design failed. They re-contracted, this time with the investor, who then took ownership of the product. This was all discovered back in July. Alpha again, never owned the end product. They're essentially outsourcing absolutely everything and are re-selling it to individuals once they purchase it, and by purchasing it this means paid in full by their customers.
If they fail to purchase it, the investor keeps the end product, whatever quantity is unsold. That's not illegal. They literally took a 100% hands-off approach, and explained this months ago.
My proposition is partially inferential, partially substantiated and one dash of calculated guesswork. But it's the only method (thus far proposed) which keeps them solvent and out of major legal issues. Anyone who wants more proof of my theory can obtain their public holdings report. It doesn't have any record of the investor's $2m/usd handoff (as of August), and that's because the investor is acting as the missing link which Alpha purchases from in the end.
If I'm wrong, that's fine, I'm merely proposing what I've seen done before with other startups and middle-man ventures, based on apparent evidence.
As to the elder, I believe he left because he has an ethical and moral conscience, especially considering his history with religious and educational relationships, business and otherwise. He has a solid history of work.
I'm not trying to start a fight in an empty room here but outsourcing does not equate to reselling. It's pretty normal in a development cycle and is not a problem. The problem arises when you have no clue what you are doing and cannot run the process smoothly. Cue Alpha.
It's obvious Dexcel are just a contractor and Alpha have to foot the full cost of design and development. If Alpha run out of money, Dexcel go on about their business and Alpha go bankrupt. We're not privy to the contract between Dexcel and Alpha but I'd bet the farm it didn't say we pay for everything up front and you keep all the assets, designs and IP. If that were the case, an investor would have no reason to deal with Alpha, they would just buy the IP from Dexcel, continue tapeout and leave Mubasher and Co high and dry.
I'm intrigued to find out where you're getting this figure of $2 million, or the idea that Alpha would give an investor any unsold vipers, or that any investor in their right mind would agree to such a haphazard proposal. You can see from the company records that Alpha sold shares to an investor a minority stake, why would anyone buy into a company that was completely and utterly worthless? To my knowledge, they have not yet published financials, so we have no way of knowing what capital flowed in or out of this company.
Also if Alpha is just a shell with no assets why don't they just wrap it up and move on? It's not like they have a meticulously crafted brand they want to hold on to. Quite the opposite in fact and a truckload of lawsuits to boot. The evidence points to a botched job, not criminal masterminds. Your hypothesis leaves any investor with his arse hanging out in the wind and would be a legal minefield. Frankly I don't really care either way but I'm going with Occam's razor on this, the simplest answer and all that
Regardless, this is all just speculation. I just hope their customers get their money back and Alpha get what they deserve. But at this point though, neither is looking likely.
