Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s - page 72. (Read 880461 times)
well where did all the money go? and where is the bitcoin addresses that hashfast still has in possession.
*snickering intensifies* not to toot my own horn... but *FOGHORN* this look like something i said a while back? I don't think this "deal" is going to work well for creditors, but hey... it will work out for at least someone, lol.
Would that be you Ray? No, he's a fool that believes that if everyone just left Eddie and Simon alone, they would have shipped all of us our miners in time to profit.
I'm currently selling him a bridge over the Thames.
Where are all of Ray's clients, who used to be abundant here?
lol, his pride was hurt, he will never ever admit that, or admit he was wrong...
Sadly he will continue to misinform either based on his own inability to understand or him just wanting to talk out his ass.
As stated before, the petition was a bad thing, it stopped ALOT of legal proceedings. there was one being prepped that could have aquired hashfast with an overabundance of capital investment to bring full resolution to the refund problem, as well as bitcoin refunds and get hashfast on the right track with people that would get things done properly. Similar to what has been going on now, after the fact... and won't fully benefit everyone. so... yeah, im the jerk for being captain obvious.
I'm positively surprised by the number of 10-posts users with such a deep understanding of what's happening behind the closed doors of the committee and naturally insider views of the deepest secrets of HF.
Ray if you're reading this! I DONT think you are representing your clients by pushing a deal right away when there is so many unanswered questions thank god there is a committee formed!
There are 3 alternatives that I see on the table at the present time (in no specific order).
1. Liquidation. Force HF back into Chapter 7, assign a trustee, and all the creditors split all moneys (from inventory, IP, bank accounts, Bitcoin wallets) recovered after legal fees.
2. Liquid Bits proposal. Scared has answer some questions but it seems that there are still more to be answered.
3. Franchise proposal. The sad thing is it is seems to be tied in with Eduardo. Eduardo has been seen multiple times last week, walking his dog in the SF financial district, talking in Spanish, often mentioning the name "Guido", and talking about this proposal (overheard by people who understand Spanish and got taken by HF).
Regardless of tactics by HF or their attorneys, is there someone to force a conclusion to this sooner than later?
1. Liquidation. Force HF back into Chapter 7, assign a trustee, and all the creditors split all moneys (from inventory, IP, bank accounts, Bitcoin wallets) recovered after legal fees.
2. Liquid Bits proposal. Scared has answer some questions but it seems that there are still more to be answered.
3. Franchise proposal. The sad thing is it is seems to be tied in with Eduardo. Eduardo has been seen multiple times last week, walking his dog in the SF financial district, talking in Spanish, often mentioning the name "Guido", and talking about this proposal (overheard by people who understand Spanish and got taken by HF).
Regardless of tactics by HF or their attorneys, is there someone to force a conclusion to this sooner than later?
Someone help me? How can i ask my money back?? someone please reply or send me pm please?
What isn't clear by reading the last 2 pages of this thread?
Fill out the claim form posted by pmorici, attach your proof, and mail to the bankruptcy court at the address I posted.
If you have problems with that I can recommend a good lawyer to help you. But quite frankly, no one should need a lawyer for the bankruptcy, as all of us are represented by committee counsel.
------
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/BK_Forms_Current/B_010.pdf
Proof of claims need to be filed with the bankruptcy court. The address is
Office of the Clerk
United States Bankruptcy Court
Northern District of California
P.O. Box 7341
San Francisco, CA 94120-7341
You should include a cover letter stating the case name (Hashfast Technologies, LLC) and number (14-30725) and requesting that the Clerk file the claim.
ok after reading nothing but nonsense, I give up on ever seeing a dime of my money back. This is nothing but a soup sandwhich. Goodbye 2k$ I spent. Simon barber I hope you rot in hell.
If this is true, and you have filed your claim, you can transfer your claim. I will buy it. PM me. What did you buy for $2,000 from them though?ok after reading nothing but nonsense, I give up on ever seeing a dime of my money back. This is nothing but a soup sandwhich. Goodbye 2k$ I spent. Simon barber I hope you rot in hell.
If this is true, and you have filed your claim, you can transfer your claim. I will buy it. PM me. What did you buy for $2,000 from them though?Man up and post with your real account?
And you?? Brother to committee chair who has everything to lose if a deal goes through? Man up?
How is the weather in Marin today?And you?? Brother to committee chair who has everything to lose if a deal goes through? Man up?
Yes, I am known because I manned up and sued them and posted when we did so. I spent my OWN money to stop this scam, my name is on the court documents that you have such a hard time reading and understanding.
I always thought Yale was overrated.
You really need to explain your statement above about what I lose if a deal goes through though. I lose nothing, I am going to get 100% of my money back from HF and so is every other creditor. That is my goal. Why? Because that is what happens when you actually try and get money back for creditors instead of trying to rip creditors off. Hopefully the judge will see that enough time has been wasted and we can move on to something productive instead of all this delaying.
I am sure my brother will hate having to give up his non paid full time job when this is all settled.
You need to be more clear when you are trying to be tough because you come across foolish. I used to think it was funny how you posted legal advice that completely contradicted the law as armyofone. Was that intentional or did you just not understand that law but were too proud to admit it?
Man up and post with your real account?
And you?? Brother to committee chair who has everything to lose if a deal goes through? Man up?
And you?? Brother to committee chair who has everything to lose if a deal goes through? Man up?
so now, in partnership with Eduardo, and a foreign entity, those same creditors are going to put their money in and save all the rest of the creditors with future mining income? The deal proposed that the creditors committee posted in court is according to the previously posted words " similar to the LB deal", but you don't support the LB deal, and now instead support one that was created by Eduardo who you say screwed you out of your money? so that deal is better as an alternative to a real one with money behind it that another independent Hashfast employee negotiated? This is game over for the creditors given that logic.
Man up and post with your real account coward.You really are dense aren't you? This is an EXAMPLE of other things that can be done. I am sure they have many more iterations after this one. Any deal where we get some of our money back SOON, is a better deal than the LB deal (which was a terrible deal). It was so bad and so out of line with reality that it does not even MERIT ARGUMENTS IN THE HEARING TO EXPLAIN IT. Chew on that. It was drafted by morons that thought they could steal the show and supported by one terrible lawyer on the creditor side that does not even seem to understand bankruptcy law. I do not know how someone could take fees from others for representing them and not even disclose the HUGE problems with the deal as offered. I guess that is why lawyers have such a poor reputation in the USA.
ok after reading nothing but nonsense, I give up on ever seeing a dime of my money back. This is nothing but a soup sandwhich. Goodbye 2k$ I spent. Simon barber I hope you rot in hell.
If this is true, and you have filed your claim, you can transfer your claim. I will buy it. PM me. What did you buy for $2,000 from them though?
Just because one member of the committee may have proposed something doesn't mean a majority of the committee supports it. That document was filed with the court to show that despite Hashfast's assertion that the LB deal is the only option there are alternatives."
HashFast assertion is that there is only a LB deal after months of exploring other alternatives, and numbers of them. And there are some chips not sold to LB in order to satisfy the few trickles of interest left in HF chips. The creditors who would have to invest in the franchise have had months to buy and invest and haven't put a dime in, so now, in partnership with Eduardo, and a foreign entity, those same creditors are going to put their money in and save all the rest of the creditors with future mining income? The deal proposed that the creditors committee posted in court is according to the previously posted words " similar to the LB deal", but you don't support the LB deal, and now instead support one that was created by Eduardo who you say screwed you out of your money? so that deal is better as an alternative to a real one with money behind it that another independent Hashfast employee negotiated? This is game over for the creditors given that logic.
HashFast assertion is that there is only a LB deal after months of exploring other alternatives, and numbers of them. And there are some chips not sold to LB in order to satisfy the few trickles of interest left in HF chips. The creditors who would have to invest in the franchise have had months to buy and invest and haven't put a dime in, so now, in partnership with Eduardo, and a foreign entity, those same creditors are going to put their money in and save all the rest of the creditors with future mining income? The deal proposed that the creditors committee posted in court is according to the previously posted words " similar to the LB deal", but you don't support the LB deal, and now instead support one that was created by Eduardo who you say screwed you out of your money? so that deal is better as an alternative to a real one with money behind it that another independent Hashfast employee negotiated? This is game over for the creditors given that logic.
ok after reading nothing but nonsense, I give up on ever seeing a dime of my money back. This is nothing but a soup sandwhich. Goodbye 2k$ I spent. Simon barber I hope you rot in hell.
"Someone" on the committee proposed a deal that has no up front cash to creditors, right? They all have to pay in more money to the company they don't trust, and from what I hear the idea was conceived by Eduardo and his Venuzealn partner so we are supposed to believe it is better than Liquid Bits putting money up front into a new company? And in the supposed non-HashFast "franchise" model, the company gives away the assets so the creditors get a return later? How does that help us? It isn't at all the same as LiquidBits since there isn't any capitalization. If there was money from all the creditors to get paid in to build out multiple mines why haven't they done so yet? How many of them have bought over the past few months since the company was forced to bankruptcy? Its not Ray Gallos clients who are going to back all these franchises is it? And not Liquid Bits? So is is another Committee collusion with the brothers, or with Simon and Eduardo and their out of country partner, trying to trick creditors again?
Just because one member of the committee may have proposed something doesn't mean a majority of the committee supports it. That document was filed with the court to show that despite Hashfast's assertion that the LB deal is the only option there are alternatives.
Its not Ray Gallos clients who are going to back all these franchises is it? And not Liquid Bits? So is is another Committee collusion with the brothers, or with Simon and Eduardo and their out of country partner, trying to trick creditors again?
Interesting that you keep needing to create new accounts to ask questions and referring to Ray Gallo all the time. Scared of posting as who you really are?Why don't you answer some questions about why a lawyer would withhold all the kind of information about "a great deal" from his clients? Who are you representing? So some hotshot lawyer cannot even put together a deal in months that even justifies a hearing? Wow, harvard is very proud right now.
So is is another Committee collusion with the brothers, or with Simon and Eduardo and their out of country partner, trying to trick creditors again?
Next time that you want to be a puppet, try to write something that makes sense to read. "Brief" (20+pages) of opposition to the sale from the committee:
http://hashfast.org/14-30725.156.pdf
http://hashfast.org/14-30725.156.pdf
People need to read this document.
Ray Gallo, you seem to have left out a few details on this "great" deal you negotiated. What is your angle in this? You do not seem to represent people wanting to get their money back.
1. Liquidbits and HF were partners in the past so it is likely that LB may not even be a creditor like the rest of us. They were obligated to give HF part of their mining revenue. That means their claim is likely going to be contested and is not as simple as a claim where a customer bought, paid and did not receive. They started a business with Hashfast, that business did not work out. Not sure they are owed their money back if that money as LB's equity investment in this new venture with HF and HF's equity was a below sale price and shipping them before ALL of us that financed the company.
2. Liquidbits has taken delivery of many of these units AND HAS NOT GOT THEM HASHING or has not paid HF money they owe them if they did get them hashing. So, how are they going to get 20 PH/s hashing for us when they didn't even do that in the last six months with less than what Icedrill got up and running? Does anyone have these attachments that they cite to show just how many TH/s (and when) LB received?
3. Back to 1., LB may owe Hashfast money. If you look at this partnership that started emerging now, LB OWES Hashfast part of the revenue they get from mining. Whether they started mining or not, when they were priority delivered the means to mine, they had an obligation to start mining and START paying part of the revenue to the ESTATE (which belongs to us creditors). VERY INTERESTING. Maybe this is why there is such a rush to get this NO BID deal done and hidden as fast as possible.
3A. LB has demanded to be released from all claims the estate has against it. Do you think the estate may have a large claim against them? 25% of all the bitcoins mined since they received products before everyone and they agreed to build this mine in October (you read that right it says OCTOBER). Maybe the $2M LB proposing to "invest" in NewCo is actually money we are owed anyway? There is a line in there saying that LB owes Hashfast $400,000 plus whatever damages HF incurred when LB failed to produce bitcoins and pay HF.
4. HF management has been OFFERED JOBS at this NEWCO. So, LB is proposing to use all our money to get all the assets for free and then they are going to pay and employ the same people that lied, and stole from us in the first place. I would like to know what Ray gets out of this too since now I know why some of the employees are all for it.
5. Two supplers are ILLEGALLY holding inventory hostage demanding to be paid before other creditors. Hashfast has done NOTHING to enforce the law and get these assets even though they claim these chips are losing TONS of value daily. Because this is against the law, the estate could actually sue these two creditors (I think that is what it means) for damages BUT more importantly is was SIMPLE to get these released and HF did NOTHING to do so.
6. Point 5. further means that the "millions" needed to pay to get inventory released is not true. Inventory would be simple to get released as it there are laws about this.
7. Hashfast and their lawyers have not even done the research to see if LB could even perform on their term sheet. No confirmation of money, facilities or even if they have staff that can perform on the proposal. NOTHING SUBMITTED by HF nor LB.
8. Someone on the committee has proposed a "franchise model" that is very similar to LBs proposal except we would have ownership instead of being an unsecured creditor.
I wish we had the information that Ray has but I find it interesting that he did not feel any of these points are relevant to point out to us. Unless he is representing LB (ie. his clients are all LB shareholders), I do not see how this would benefit "the huge group of creditor's he represents", Anyone have thoughts on this?
"Someone" on the committee proposed a deal that has no up front cash to creditors, right? They all have to pay in more money to the company they don't trust, and from what I hear the idea was conceived by Eduardo and his Venuzealn partner so we are supposed to believe it is better than Liquid Bits putting money up front into a new company? And in the supposed non-HashFast "franchise" model, the company gives away the assets so the creditors get a return later? How does that help us? It isn't at all the same as LiquidBits since there isn't any capitalization. If there was money from all the creditors to get paid in to build out multiple mines why haven't they done so yet? How many of them have bought over the past few months since the company was forced to bankruptcy? Its not Ray Gallos clients who are going to back all these franchises is it? And not Liquid Bits? So is is another Committee collusion with the brothers, or with Simon and Eduardo and their out of country partner, trying to trick creditors again?
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Northern District of California
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was received from Montali, Dennis entered on 7/26/2014 at 3:34 PM PDT and filed on 7/26/2014
Case Name: Hashfast Technologies LLC
Case Number: 14-30725
Document Number:
Docket Text:
DOCKET TEXT ORDER (no separate order issued:) The court has read the sale and assumption motion (Dkt. No. 134) and the opposition by the Committee (Dkt. No. 159). Even before considering the opposition, the court identified numerous problems with the motions; the opposition confirms most of those problems and identifies some the court did not. The debtors filed an Asset Purchase Agreement FIVE minutes before the Committee filed its opposition, but even if the APA cures some of the defects presented by the motions and the term sheet, the Committee and other parties cannot be expected to review and respond to a document filed less than one business day before the hearing. Unless the Committee has a complete change of heart before July 28, 2104, at 2:00 and decides to withdraw its opposition and support the motions, the court intends to deny them. And even if there is a withdrawal, debtors should not assume the motions will be granted. Assuming no change of position by the Committee, its counsel and debtors counsel should meet and confer before the July 28 hearing and attempt to agree on a schedule for matters including the motion to consolidate, any renewed motion to sell and assume, and any other motions either party expects to file in the near future. (Montali, Dennis)
Northern District of California
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was received from Montali, Dennis entered on 7/26/2014 at 3:34 PM PDT and filed on 7/26/2014
Case Name: Hashfast Technologies LLC
Case Number: 14-30725
Document Number:
Docket Text:
DOCKET TEXT ORDER (no separate order issued:) The court has read the sale and assumption motion (Dkt. No. 134) and the opposition by the Committee (Dkt. No. 159). Even before considering the opposition, the court identified numerous problems with the motions; the opposition confirms most of those problems and identifies some the court did not. The debtors filed an Asset Purchase Agreement FIVE minutes before the Committee filed its opposition, but even if the APA cures some of the defects presented by the motions and the term sheet, the Committee and other parties cannot be expected to review and respond to a document filed less than one business day before the hearing. Unless the Committee has a complete change of heart before July 28, 2104, at 2:00 and decides to withdraw its opposition and support the motions, the court intends to deny them. And even if there is a withdrawal, debtors should not assume the motions will be granted. Assuming no change of position by the Committee, its counsel and debtors counsel should meet and confer before the July 28 hearing and attempt to agree on a schedule for matters including the motion to consolidate, any renewed motion to sell and assume, and any other motions either party expects to file in the near future. (Montali, Dennis)
Let me translate this for you. The "expert" lawyers that Hashfast hired (and are getting paid with money that would go to us creditors) did not even know how to properly follow procedure for filing motions in the case. But besides that point, a judge on a Saturday, can read through the offer and see that it is a complete joke and does not even need to hear more arguments about it to waste his time on Monday.
Maybe now everyone can focus on something realistic to get us our money back. I hope the lawyers do not get paid for all the hours they spent making a motion that was full of errors (and did not disclose the relationships between HF and LB).
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Northern District of California
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was received from Montali, Dennis entered on 7/26/2014 at 3:34 PM PDT and filed on 7/26/2014
Case Name: Hashfast Technologies LLC
Case Number: 14-30725
Document Number:
Docket Text:
DOCKET TEXT ORDER (no separate order issued:) The court has read the sale and assumption motion (Dkt. No. 134) and the opposition by the Committee (Dkt. No. 159). Even before considering the opposition, the court identified numerous problems with the motions; the opposition confirms most of those problems and identifies some the court did not. The debtors filed an Asset Purchase Agreement FIVE minutes before the Committee filed its opposition, but even if the APA cures some of the defects presented by the motions and the term sheet, the Committee and other parties cannot be expected to review and respond to a document filed less than one business day before the hearing. Unless the Committee has a complete change of heart before July 28, 2104, at 2:00 and decides to withdraw its opposition and support the motions, the court intends to deny them. And even if there is a withdrawal, debtors should not assume the motions will be granted. Assuming no change of position by the Committee, its counsel and debtors counsel should meet and confer before the July 28 hearing and attempt to agree on a schedule for matters including the motion to consolidate, any renewed motion to sell and assume, and any other motions either party expects to file in the near future. (Montali, Dennis)
Jump to: