Topic: Putting Adults in Charge at Hashfast (Read 4128 times)
Hashfast is now in Chapter 11 - Hashfast files for Chapter 11 [coinfire.cf]
Hashfast is now in bankruptcy.
http://hashfast.org/14-30725.38.pdf
http://hashfast.org/14-30725.35.pdf
Moving forward there will be a lot of maneuvering and small players will have to be diligent. We have spent a hefty amount of money out of pocket on lawyers fees in the interest of all those small players. Moving forward we need to put in place a creditors council to make sure a fair resolution is made for everyone. If you are owed refunds or equipment from Hashfast and want to support our efforts please send me contact information in a PM.
http://hashfast.org/14-30725.38.pdf
http://hashfast.org/14-30725.35.pdf
Moving forward there will be a lot of maneuvering and small players will have to be diligent. We have spent a hefty amount of money out of pocket on lawyers fees in the interest of all those small players. Moving forward we need to put in place a creditors council to make sure a fair resolution is made for everyone. If you are owed refunds or equipment from Hashfast and want to support our efforts please send me contact information in a PM.
Hi, is it possible to join the suit? Can you send me some more info?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Good luck OP! It's about time someone got serious with these scammers!
Having been on both sides of law suits there are a few things to consider. The first of which is are there any liquid assets? The second is legal fees, who will pay. The third is obtaining a chapter 7 bankruptcy considering that the company may well argue that such action is not warranted. Also the company may file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy under which the company is protected from it's creditors. The company can also argue "Buyer's Remorse" and I feel sure they will have many other arguments.
Usually my attorney convinced me that while I had a good to excellent chance of winning I should consider the possibility of loosing and even if I win will the legal costs be greater than the recovered money. In all but one case I did not sue. I did win one suit but was never able to collect because there was no money to be payed with.
Note that there are already two federal lawsuits alleging fraud, along with five separate arbitration cases. See: Arstechnica post.
I'm not saying not to take legal action, I'm saying to go into this with your eyes-wide-open. Make sure you are not throwing good money after bad.
Disclaimer: I have no interest in the company in any manner.
Usually my attorney convinced me that while I had a good to excellent chance of winning I should consider the possibility of loosing and even if I win will the legal costs be greater than the recovered money. In all but one case I did not sue. I did win one suit but was never able to collect because there was no money to be payed with.
Note that there are already two federal lawsuits alleging fraud, along with five separate arbitration cases. See: Arstechnica post.
I'm not saying not to take legal action, I'm saying to go into this with your eyes-wide-open. Make sure you are not throwing good money after bad.
Disclaimer: I have no interest in the company in any manner.
I paid in USD. Have wire transaction records, e-mails from Hashfast confirming receipt and that the order is okay, etc. Can't imagine how they could DQ me. The evidence is irrefutable.
Then again, if their shipping update posts are to be believed, they are on the verge of actually filling the remaining Batch 2 upgrade card orders, which would remove me from this action....
Then again, if their shipping update posts are to be believed, they are on the verge of actually filling the remaining Batch 2 upgrade card orders, which would remove me from this action....
I think you just answered your own question. My guess as to what will happen is that once they have the list of people who are making claims they will prioritize shipment to those people first paying them off with now nearly worthless hardware and also use procedures to delay any court proceeding to the greatest extent possible in order to give them the maximum amount of time to ship and nullify as many individual claims as possible.
If they do this after the bankruptcy filing, I believe it would have no impact on receivership. They would still need to demonstrate that the company is solvent to continue operations.
I assume since you mention that HF would likely use the strategy of DQing creditors that there is obviously a process for vetting actual creditors from people with other intentions, not your vetting process but the courts? I always thought this move required one to have some kind of official creditor status like a judgement or something. Basically a court vetted creditor in layman terms, otherwise isn't it still basically a "I say you owe me you say you don't scenario"?
If your angle is they need to be removed quickly to preserve the assets, doesn't that mean you need to preserve the assets while its under litigation?
I am curious how this can be done, can you share without giving to much away the procedural aspect of it?
If your angle is they need to be removed quickly to preserve the assets, doesn't that mean you need to preserve the assets while its under litigation?
I am curious how this can be done, can you share without giving to much away the procedural aspect of it?
There does not seem to be that much to it. You are making an application to the court, so false statements would expose you to contempt and perjury charges, as well as liability from the debtor you are filing against. That seems to be sufficient to keep everything honest, and there doesn't appear to be a lot of bureaucracy associated with the filing.
Once in receivership, the receiver has the duty to evaluate all claims against the debtor so you do need to prove such a debt exists, but that seems to be the extent of things.
EDIT: regarding your comments about process and stripping assets from the rightful holders. The receiver follows that process during the bankruptcy. If assets exceed liabilities they still belong to the owners of the company. What you can't do is operate your company with other people's assets without their agreement. By not paying refunds that are owed that is what Hashfast is doing today.
They won't ship if you requested a refund.
And they won't refund you if you didn't request a refund using something else than your lawyer in a period different than the 15 days allowed by the ToS.
(i actually don't really know the contractual conditions of batches different than the first 2, so the 15 days period thing could be wrong.)
And they won't refund you if you didn't request a refund using something else than your lawyer in a period different than the 15 days allowed by the ToS.
(i actually don't really know the contractual conditions of batches different than the first 2, so the 15 days period thing could be wrong.)
I paid in USD. Have wire transaction records, e-mails from Hashfast confirming receipt and that the order is okay, etc. Can't imagine how they could DQ me. The evidence is irrefutable.
Then again, if their shipping update posts are to be believed, they are on the verge of actually filling the remaining Batch 2 upgrade card orders, which would remove me from this action....
Then again, if their shipping update posts are to be believed, they are on the verge of actually filling the remaining Batch 2 upgrade card orders, which would remove me from this action....
I think you just answered your own question. My guess as to what will happen is that once they have the list of people who are making claims they will prioritize shipment to those people first paying them off with now nearly worthless hardware and also use procedures to delay any court proceeding to the greatest extent possible in order to give them the maximum amount of time to ship and nullify as many individual claims as possible.
I paid in USD. Have wire transaction records, e-mails from Hashfast confirming receipt and that the order is okay, etc. Can't imagine how they could DQ me. The evidence is irrefutable.
Then again, if their shipping update posts are to be believed, they are on the verge of actually filling the remaining Batch 2 upgrade card orders, which would remove me from this action.... regrettable, since at this point seeing the bastards taken out is of more interest to me than the upgrade card.
Unless the suit will also be advancing Batch 1 MPP claims, in which case I'll happily stay in!
Then again, if their shipping update posts are to be believed, they are on the verge of actually filling the remaining Batch 2 upgrade card orders, which would remove me from this action.... regrettable, since at this point seeing the bastards taken out is of more interest to me than the upgrade card.
Unless the suit will also be advancing Batch 1 MPP claims, in which case I'll happily stay in!
I guess this is what I am asking. Will the court hearing this request take the time to basically vet each claimant (because not everyone is as honest as you
)? Or will the standing be that you must have proven your case with litigation (being vetted at trial) to be considered a creditor. They are asking a court to strip private citizens of a privately held corporation. It think it's pretty clear one way or the other they are going to vet claimants, I always assumed litigation was required but if these guys have done there homework then my assumptions are incorrect.
I paid in USD. Have wire transaction records, e-mails from Hashfast confirming receipt and that the order is okay, etc. Can't imagine how they could DQ me. The evidence is irrefutable.
Then again, if their shipping update posts are to be believed, they are on the verge of actually filling the remaining Batch 2 upgrade card orders, which would remove me from this action.... regrettable, since at this point seeing the bastards taken out is of more interest to me than the upgrade card.
Unless the suit will also be advancing Batch 1 MPP claims, in which case I'll happily stay in!
Then again, if their shipping update posts are to be believed, they are on the verge of actually filling the remaining Batch 2 upgrade card orders, which would remove me from this action.... regrettable, since at this point seeing the bastards taken out is of more interest to me than the upgrade card.
Unless the suit will also be advancing Batch 1 MPP claims, in which case I'll happily stay in!
I assume since you mention that HF would likely use the strategy of DQing creditors that there is obviously a process for vetting actual creditors from people with other intentions, not your vetting process but the courts? I always thought this move required one to have some kind of official creditor status like a judgement or something. Basically a court vetted creditor in layman terms, otherwise isn't it still basically a "I say you owe me you say you don't scenario"?
If your angle is they need to be removed quickly to preserve the assets, doesn't that mean you need to preserve the assets while its under litigation?
I am curious how this can be done, can you share without giving to much away the procedural aspect of it?
If your angle is they need to be removed quickly to preserve the assets, doesn't that mean you need to preserve the assets while its under litigation?
I am curious how this can be done, can you share without giving to much away the procedural aspect of it?
Im interested, keep posting if u have news!
An edit because maybe it's not clear enough. The forced bankruptcy thing fails, by definition, if the debtor pays the creditor. This can happen after that the forced bankruptcy has been filled. HashCrap might decide not to pay anyone but to be ready to pay people forcing them into bankruptcy. That's the worst case scenario i was talking about before.
That's not necessarily bad, provided that the creditors who get paid don't keep quiet about it (i.e. no nondisclosure agreement!). If Hashfast pays off people filing a suit like this, then the smaller guys band together and file suit themselves. Several groups of smaller guys. Recycle similar paperwork from case to case to keep the cost down. I would hope that we, the creditors, big and small could cooperate if that scenario unfolds.
Go back to your (dare i say manipulative?) trustworthiness guide, dogie. You are not helping and you are obviously not interested into listening. Thank you.
There is nothing to listen to, you're going to sue a company but first you're going to tell us about it. I hope you get your money back, but I hope you actually do sue them rather than complaining and blowing smoke like so many do.What exactly do you need as help, you've not made that clear in the OP. Put your accusations that I'm corrupt or bias in meta please, I'll see you there.
We have no intention of suing. Lawsuits in the United States only enrich the lawyers involved. It is trivially easy to extend the resolution of any lawsuit by many years and the lawyers on both sides prefer that as it lines their pockets.
We are going to petition the court to place Hashfast into involuntary bankruptcy due to their failure to pay debts. As the law requires multiple creditors to participate in the petition, this posting is to inform the community of the action and allow them to participate. We anticipate Hashfast's strategy will be to attempt to disqualify creditors so we would like to file with an overwhelming number of creditors.
Dogie, after having sincerely tried to explain without any success for half of this thread why this is in no way a threat, if you don't mind, I won't reply trying to argue that yet another time.
Go back to your (dare i say manipulative?) trustworthiness guide, dogie. You are not helping and you are obviously not interested into listening. Thank you.
There is nothing to listen to, you're going to sue a company but first you're going to tell us about it. I hope you get your money back, but I hope you actually do sue them rather than complaining and blowing smoke like so many do.What exactly do you need as help, you've not made that clear in the OP. Put your accusations that I'm corrupt or bias in meta please, I'll see you there.
Go back to your (dare i say manipulative?) trustworthiness guide, dogie. You are not helping and you are obviously not interested into listening. Thank you.
Look at the tense of the quote from the OP... it will be filed (we will do y...) unless you refund (unless you do x). This isn't rocket science :/
If this wasn't an open challenge/threat to HashFast and you were suing them regardless then there wouldn't need to be a forum post.
If this wasn't an open challenge/threat to HashFast and you were suing them regardless then there wouldn't need to be a forum post.
The more creditors on the initial filing the better because the creditors are the stakeholders. But yes, one downfall is that if they refund every single person on the filing, then the filing will be useless and the OP stated this and we would be out all the money that we have paid the law firm to research and prepare this. Is that clear enough for you?
Do you have an order or a refund request with Hashfast?
We anticipate actual filings will be made next week. Hashfast can easily prevent this by paying the refunds that are owed.
So this is meant to be a threat to get a refund, give it us or we take your company?The court will appoint a receiver who will decide to either liquidate the company or bring in management to operate it as a going concern. We will not be any more involved than any other creditor once Hashfast is placed into involuntary bankruptcy. This is an ordinary process allowed to creditors of companies that fail to meet their obligations. Literally centuries of law has been developed to make the process fair for everyone involved.
If refunds are paid, we would have no standing with the court to request bankruptcy. To keep things fair I am offering others the chance to participate in this filing if they are in the similar situation to us of being unwilling to act as Hashfast's interest free bankers.
Jump to: