...
So lets be clear: Please tell us exactly what Havelock have done wrong in relation to AM and AMHASH? Also state the limits of their errors/misbehaviour and indicate what reasonable compensation you are looking for which is proportionate to their actions...
Havelock, above and beyond facilitating sale of unregistered securities to US persons, knowingly deals directly with US issuers of said illegal securities--US nationals, operating from US soil (see: Brandon Schlichter (RENT), his brother Benny Schlichter (HASH) MS, etc., etc.) in breach of both US law & Havelock's own TOS).
Havelock has a long, storied history of issuers & passthrough operators vanishing with the
rubes' investor's money. Total number of offerings trading above IPO price? Just one (currently being pumped). If it looks and shits like a duck.
Havelock even robs those foolish enough to buy Havelock's own, self-issued HIF and CFIG.
TL;DR: Guy's a petty fraudster who made stealing possible for more competent, grander fraudsters--should not profit from this. He also happens to be awful at what he does, thus offering LEO plenty of technicalities to snag him on. Would be surprised if this lasts longer than 3 months.
It's ironic (is that the right word, I'm not sure...?) that people who jumped on board knowing full well that they were purchasing unregistered securities then turn around and want to use that Asa means to attack havelock. You knew full well that you were buying unregistered securities in the first place, seems disingenuous to then raise that as an issue; there's got to be some level of personal responsibility at hand.
Yes, am & amhash perpetuated a fraud, that's definitely grounds to complain. But no one forced you US citizens ti go buy what you knew then and know now we're unregistered securities. Looking at the investment performance of the other securities listed on their site is also meaningless; treading prices are outside of their control. They manage the registration and sale of shares, the transfer of proceeds from those sales to the seller (whether the issuer or a secondary seller), the distribution of dividends that are recieved. They don't evaluate the fitness of each security, just as etrade wasn't liable for the Enron fraud.
I'm not defending FC, AM, or AMhash. I get the anger about the loss. But casting this met wider and wider and threatening people who are, in all likelihood, completely unrelated to those who perpetuated the fraud is not appropriate. And running off to complain about unregistered sales of securities, again, you knew full well of that fact before hand. people who want the protections afforded to people who deposit into fdic insured institutions or want the protections offered by the SEC simply shouldn't be investing in Bitcoin at this point. It's in its Wild West phase. Regulations will likely come, but until that day arrives, you might be better off avoiding Bitcoins and Bitcoin related investments as being too high of risk.