After much discussion and criticism last week Oversee/SnapNames.com announced today that it has revised and restated the release they are requiring those wanting to accept the settlement for the bidding activities of the bidder Halvarez to sign.
As we have discussed here we thought the release was overly broad and the literally reading would release Oversee and Snapnames from all and any liability for any activity on SnapNames related or not related to the bidder Halvarez which was the bidder ID of Nelson Brady, a former employee and officer of the SnapNames.
The language we objected in the document was the following which sought a release:
“”Relating to the auctions for and acquisition of the Domains, including without limitation, any Claims relating in whole or in part to the bidding activity of the SnapNames user associated with the user name “halvarez”
Our objection was simply that since the only thing being offered was compensation for bidding activities related to halvarez the release should be limited to the activities of Halvarez.
Today Oversee sent over the following statement:
“”””Update to Rebate Offer Acceptance Agreement
On November 6, 2009, SnapNames (via Rust Consulting) communicated an offer to provide a rebate to customers with accounts impacted by inappropriate bidding activity from one of its former employees.
Included with that communication was a Rebate Offer Acceptance Agreement for customers to complete and return to Rust Consulting, the third-party administrator managing the rebate offer.
Several SnapNames customers expressed concerns about the agreement’s language. After considering these comments, we concluded that a section of the original agreement, addressing the scope of release of potential claims, could be interpreted as too broad and not what the company intended, and therefore should be clarified.
Accordingly, the revised copy states precisely that the agreement addresses only the SnapNames auctions in which there was bidding activity from the user name “halvarez.” Please see the marked relevant paragraph below.
Customers who have already communicated their acceptance of the rebate do not need to take further action at this point—their rebates are already being processed for payment. However, if they prefer the revised language, they can print, sign and return the updated document. In that event, we will destroy the original acceptance agreement.
Calculation of rebate amounts
As discussed in the November 6 communication from Rust Consulting, to determine the rebate offer amount, SnapNames hired an independent, third-party forensic accounting firm to perform a thorough review of these auctions and calculate the rebate.
The firm reviewed data regarding all of the bidders in an affected auction, including the bids each bidder placed in the auction and the maximum bids the bidders indicated they were willing to place in the auction; from this data, it was determined what the winning bid would have been had halvarez never placed a bid in the auction. This amount was then subtracted from the actual price paid for the domain name to determine the amount of the rebate for that auction.
Upon further review of this data, SnapNames has learned that for a small number of accounts (less than 5% of the auctions impacted by halvarez), calculations failed to account for changes in our bidding system over time. In those cases, there will be a resulting upward adjustment of between $1 and $5 per auction. Affected customers do not need to take any action—they automatically will be paid the higher amount. If a payment has already been processed, the customer will be issued an additional check for the difference (or credit will be added to the customer’s SnapNames account, according to the customer’s decision).
Bidders and domain names in auctions won by Halvarez
Customers and selected bloggers have asked SnapNames to offer compensation to bidders who competed in auctions won by the Halvarez user name.
Regrettably, SnapNames does not own these names and cannot unwind the sale of these names or otherwise offer them up for auction again. SnapNames is not offering any rebate or other compensation to bidders who lost names to Halvarez.
Although it cannot discuss the details of any ongoing legal issues, SnapNames intends to pursue the legal remedies it may have with respect to this matter.
Additional options for sending your rebate acceptance
As detailed previously, customers electing to accept the rebate offer can execute and return the Rebate Offer Acceptance Agreement to:
SnapNames Rebate Administrator
P.O. Box 98
Minneapolis, MN 55440-0098
We have made additional options available for returning the agreement. Customers may:
· Fax your executed offer to (503) 200-1232
· E-mail a scanned copy of the executed offer to snapnamesrebateoffer@snapnames.com
So the release as modified will say:
I, the undersigned, individually and jointly, for myself and my successors, assigns, trustees, partners, joint venturers, directors, officers, affiliates, associates, managers, licensees, and for any other claiming through or under each or all of them and for any person or entity with or for whom I may have purchased the above mentioned names (collectively, the “Releasors”) hereby release and forever discharge, acquit, covenant not to sue and acknowledge complete satisfaction from, SnapNames, and its past and present parent companies (including Oversee.net), affiliates, successors, assigns, agents, attorneys, servants, representatives, employees, independent contractors, trustees, administrators, predecessors-in-interest, insurers, partners, joint venturers, stockholders, members, directors, officers, parent companies, associated companies, holding companies, subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, associates, managers, licensees, accountants and consultants of any of the foregoing (collectively, the “Releasees”) for any and all claims, actions, arbitrations, charges, complaints, grievances, hearings, causes of action, actions, suits, damages, costs, expenses, judgments, liabilities, demands, inquiries, investigations, proceedings or suits of every kind and nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, previously existing, or now existing, or hereafter arising, in law or in equity (collectively, the “Claims”), which the Releasors or any of them had, may have had, or now has, from the beginning of time to today’s date against the Releasees, collectively, or any of the Releasees, individually, for or by reason of any matter whatsoever relating in whole or in part to the bidding activity of the SnapNames user associated with the user name “halvarez” (the “Released Matters”) for damages, restitution, disgorgement, unjust enrichment, civil penalties, statutory penalties, injunctive and/or declaratory relief, whether class, individual, representative, or otherwise in nature, including costs, expenses, penalties, and attorneys fees.
Mason Cole””
If you already executed the release, you can ask that the previous release you signed to be destroyed and replaced with this release.
Now I can hear a lot of you hitting the keyboards already ready to comment on here to say, I don’t believe Oversee when they say it was all a misunderstanding.
I’m going to say it just doesn’t matter.
Other than for chest banging or ego boosting, what is the difference, whether Oversee and its attorneys meant as they say that the release was only requiring people to waive were there right’s to make a claim based on the bidder Halverez, and after reading our comments and/or the comments of Rick Schwartz on his blog or Howard Neu’s analysis of the release, realized that the domainer community read the release to say something quite different than how they read it, or whetor whether having read these posts and the comments realized that very few people were going to sign the release as stated, they decided to modify it.
The modification now clearly indicates the waiver is limited to the bidding activities of Halvarez.
The bottom line is that the release has been changed for the benefit of all domainers into a document that can be considered by domainers for settlement, which the previous version in my opinion could not.
Our major objection to the release have now been overcome and the release now becomes a real option which we are going to strongly consider signing as well.
The release now would not bar you from seeking claims or damages for any other bidders that were found to be fraudulent, other than Halvarez, or other any other improprieties that maybe found later to be going on at Snapnames.com.
So if Brady or any other insider at Oversee/Snapnames.com was found in the future to have engaged in shill bidding under any other bidder ID other than Halvarez, you would still have the same claim you would have had, if you did not sign the release.
Likewise if any other actionable improprieties at Snapnames are discovered, unrelated to Halvarez, you would still have a right to bring an action.
So just to be clear lets review what you would be getting and what you would be giving up if you signed the release and took the offered settlement.
If you take the settlement, you of course get cash (or credit at snap if you prefer)
Cash is good.
Cash is immediate.
And all of the cash goes to you, none goes to attorney’s.
You are going to be compensated for those auctions you won where Halvarez finished 2nd.
However, if Halvarez bid in an auction you won, but did not finish 2nd, you get no compensation under the settlement.
What your giving up:
Any other claim for damages on the actions of the bidder Halvarez, including a right to sue individually or by joining a class action.
I have seen some discussions about the possibility of tremble damages under consumer protection laws and the possibility of punitive damages.
I have no idea of whether such claims are sustainable or would apply in this situation and you will need to consult with an attorney experienced with such matters to get their opinion.
By signing the release you would also be giving up any claim for damages caused by Halvarez bidding but not finishing in 2nd place.
Again I have no idea of whether such a claim is sustainable and you should consult with an attorney to see what they believe your ultimate gains could be but you also need to realize that litigation is something that can certainly drag on for years, including appeal.
Finally remember if “worst comes to worst” there is always a risk that this company might be forced into, or file for protection from its creditors and in which case you become an unsecured creditor, which is never a good position to be in.
The other ancillary benefit to Oversee/Snapnames.com is the change in the release may take some heat off the theory that there are other issues Oversee is aware of and that they were trying to “sneak” such issues into a release.
This modified release should help ease those concerns.
About time… !!
Thanks to you Mike, Rick and Howard for staying on top of things.
Best,
Mike
Mike
Thank you for bringing the issue to light in the first place and for your analysis of the situation today. I believe that Oversee is trying to do the right thing and I am especially pleased with their statement that
“Although it cannot discuss the details of any ongoing legal issues, SnapNames intends to pursue the legal remedies it may have with respect to this matter.”
This will go a long way into re-instilling trust lost by the first actions or lack thereof.
Ditto Howard Neu’s comments. The elimination of the previous over-reaching language assures others that Oversee do not intend to screw over current or future customers. Went from unreasonable to reasonable.
can’t they just give everyone snapnames credit? They won’t have to give money up front and will perhaps keep snapnames afloat…… still better than losing all of it with the lawsuits.
I’m Jeff Kupietzky, CEO of Oversee.net. I want to address various comments on previous posts about a perceived lack of communication by SnapNames since the initial disclosure of this situation.
In fact, SnapNames and Oversee have been communicating directly with customers concerning this situation, and we have been talking with them daily. We’ll continue to make customers the first priority in our communications—our account managers, customer service personnel and managers are all available to discuss the situation. We have been following the thoughts raised in forums like these and appreciate the input we are receiving here and in our direct conversations.
There are of course aspects of this matter that are legal in nature that we can’t discuss. But to the extent we can, we’re happy to talk with customers, so please reach out to us. I can be reached at jkupietzky@oversee.net.
Jeff
I don’t know what you mean just give everyone credit at snapnames.com?
Credit for what?
Computed how?
Moreover a lot of domains that sell on snap, are owned domains which except for commission they have to pay out to domainers, so its not like they would just be giving away “credits”.
Credit is real money.
If you take the settlement you can take it in the form of credit or cash
Big step forward. When domainers unite, things can get done. As you all know, I have no dog in this hunt. That said, NOW folks can decide if they want the money and I believe most folks will sign barring anything I missed as I have yet to read the revised agreement in its entirety.
It’s a better day today than yesterday.
Sounds good. I would say guys this is case closed here. Lets move on. No more discussion on this please, ITS OVER.
Over?? This just helps to get the train back on the track. But a lot more answers will be needed before this is “Over”. This will just defuse the outrage and stop some of the bleeding. But this is very far from being over.
Well the CEO has his email address above. I would address it directly with him, just saying, hes putting himself out there. Why keep going on and on here?
Rick,
Since your so vocal without having a dog in this fight. Can you explain about the Katrina Scam and worldjet.com since you know a little more about it? Since you demand full disclosure from Oversee, please provide it with Katrina Scam and worldjet.com as well.
Glad to see Oversee changing the terms but still no word on criminal charges against Brady.
Cant you also have shill bidding on names YOU put up for auction? Like have other members bid up that name?
So instead of a name selling for maybe $100, it sells for $150 or $200.
This happens on ebay every second of the day for thousands of auctions I would assume, no?
Not keeping it going, but you stating it is “Over” is just ridiculous at this stage. We are at the beginning of this, not the end. Lots of questions that must be answered. I am sure some want it to go away asap. But too many questions still lingering for that to happen because you say so.
Ok, fair enough, lets say its OVER until 1pm EST? 😉
😉 ok. lol
That was 1 minute ago. Food fight!!
What’s the deal with “Katrina Scam” and “worldjet.com”? Inquiring minds want to know.
SL How long have you been a STUPID MORON? Inquiring minds want to know??
Rick, ouch. It was mentioned above so I thought it was somehow related to the halvarez issue. Guess not.
Not Important
Regarding criminal charges, this was in the announcement from Snapnames.com I posted:
“””Although it cannot discuss the details of any ongoing legal issues, SnapNames intends to pursue the legal remedies it may have with respect to this matter.””
I read this to say they are going to pursue all the legal options they have but they are not going to discuss it, that would include criminal and civil options.
Mike,
Regarding the civil or criminal charges statements. This is what bothers me.
“””Although it cannot discuss the details of any ongoing legal issues, SnapNames intends to pursue the legal remedies it may have with respect to this matter.””
What is with the word “MAY” ? That leaves it open to interpretation and subjectivity
Rick…who the hell are you to call that person a STUPID MORON. Are you hiding something? Come clean….the truth will set you free.
Talk about the Katrina scam and worldjet.com
Not
Yes I agree and would still have preferred a statement to the effect that they have filed charges and cannot comment further.
However this is the best we are going to get for a while.
Not Important, You are right. You are not important. I guess somebody must have opened the moron cage today.
google it, I found what he was saying. Why ask? always google dude.
I see a press release about worldjet.com but nothing that screams “scam”.
Guys
This post has nothing to do with Mr. Schwartz, worldjet.com or anything else other than Snapnames, Oversee, and the release and settlement modification announced today.
As this is something, Howard, muself and others were quite concerned about, the fact that Oversee changed it, its a big deal, as it will allow a lot of domainers to consider signing it and getting some of their money back.
For any other issues you wish to discuss with Rick he has his own blog and you can bring that mess over there.
Mr King of Domains,
As we’re on the topic of more disclosures. The fact that you bid in your TRAFFIC auctions seems to be murky area, because its known you receive a % of sales from each companys auction …. Wait… so that means you buys at a discount compared to all the other people in the room who also pay you’re $2k for conference admission. Is that competing fairly in auctions? How many bidders didn’t bother pick up their paddles when they see the king of domains bidding in an auction at his own conference? who wants to compete with that? would other buyers like to get X% of their purchase price back from the auction companys like you do? Yes please!….
How about the purchase of cd.com at the TRAFFIC auction in July 2006? Definitely rumors on that one and shows a new owner today…. hmmm…
Interesting times.
Back onto topic, I join in the approval of the more specific language on the snap legal waiver.
another moron
Moron Cage?
How does it feel to get booted from your own show cause your such an ass? Good thing RL came in and gave you the out you needed.
Your disrespect of others is pathetic and shows no class.
Grow up!
I think he sold cd.com at a loss. Ask the new owner what he paid?
Good to see they are at least listening/responding to their customers concerns but I still don’t like the way it is worded.
“by reason of any matter whatsoever relating in whole or in part to the bidding activity of the SnapNames user associated with the user name “halvarez””
…Snapnames user “associated” with the user name Halvarez
So basically if we/you or any future court case finds out that Nelson Brady has used more than one fake bidding name we will NOT be able to claim any money back on those past auctions now or anytime in the future if we have signed.
Hmmm, Close but no cigar !
.
Mike,
Where do these roaches come from? Orkin, One call DESTROYS them all.
And I thought this was going to be a boring day.
I don’t know why they decided to use your blog to pee all over my leg. Clueless and classless.
Jeff Kupietzky:
the problem with Rust phone and email service is that they along being clueless also refuse to discuss nor negotiate outside the rebate offer in other words they are worthless.
Until you adress to somehow compensate/ repay people that won domains in which
halvarez bidded pass or over the minimum amount (59/60 USD?) thus inflanting the final price and your oversized FAT undeserved wallet not to mention Oversee’s coffers , only a few idiots (under that situation) will settle.
Rob.
Mike please remove the off-topic oportunistic low life comments.
More that the monetary payout/payoff ….I would actually like a fully detailed personal and/or public explanation of the Why’s, how’s, motives, lies and deceptions by Halvarez/Brady…..I know this is very unlikely to happen, but I’m quite serious about this standpoint and wanted to “air it out” …. I think that above and beyond (or in addition too) monetary motivations…..he may have been getting amusement by “goofing on” and toying with people just like some cyber-hacker geeks do attacking, hacking and disrupting sites and E-mail accounts for personal entertainment and/or trying to prove that they’re smart ….just a Theory !
Gazzip
I can see where you could get to the interpretation your placing on the new language, however I read it to simply say your releasing claims against the bidding activity of Halvarez. Since Brady’s name does not even appear in the release I do not think you are waiving any rights against his other activities done outside of the bidder ID of Halvarez.
I will try to pass this back to Oversee/Snap and see if I can get clarification
Robbie
Unfortunately there are just too many inappropriate comments to remove them all and I don’t want to be in the business of playing censor.
Regarding your statement:
“until you adress to somehow compensate/ repay people that won domains in which Halvarez bidded pass or over the minimum amount (59/60 USD?) thus inflanting the final price…only a few idiots (under that situation) will settle.””
The problem is this.
If you don’t settle you have to sue.
If you sue, you have to prove damages.
You can’t just allege had the guy not bid the final price would have been lower.
You have to have proof and an amount of loss to get damages and I just don’t see how anyone is going to to that.
I agree and stated in my open letter that I thought domainers are entitled to some compensation and urged Oversee to offer something, however at this point they are not.
However the ultimate call on whether to accept 100% of the settlement or to sue and have an attorney as your partner is going to be up to each individual.
But each person is going to have to answer the question of how are you going to prove what your going to have to prove to get additional damages
NetJohn
We would all like to know that, but it maybe years before we get those answers
The name and reputation of SnapNames is ruined for all times. That compay has no future anymore. And its name only reminds us about the fraud scandal. It will always be associated with it, and always produce a bitter after taste.
Everywhere else, such a company would step back and go out of business, but not try to stay in business.
But this company does not seem to have any moral or ethic princibles. Still only interested in it self, but not in others.
Why are consumer keeping fraudulent companies alive (eBay, PayPal, SnapNames) which are controlled by white collar criminals? After so much obvious fraud?
Time to come clean. And bring them all to trial, and eventually send them to jail, where they belong.
Release a few innocent prisoners, and make room for the ones, who are always cheating us for our hard earned money.
.
I agree that if you lost a domain the court might as well give you 8 USD since thier market value is hard to assess
**********
On this statement:
“If you don’t settle you have to sue.
If you sue, you have to prove damages.
You can’t just allege had the guy not bid the final price would have been lower.
You have to have proof and an amount of loss to get damages and I just don’t see how anyone is going to to that.”
I dont see it so difficult, perhaps I need to explain better:
I am referring to the Auctions on which you Won and halvarez bidded more than once, He in fact and effectively inflated the final price you paid, (not so hard to prove) if there were other bidders who cares? The house bidded against you ( factor unkown to you ) the burden of proof is on them the way I see it.
Perhaps you already psoted the data on the amount of Auctions you Won and halavarez bidded more than once (pass the 60 USD).
If they consider settleing those Auctions , they will have a lot less litigations down the road, at this point the people from “Rust r us” are not willing to even discuss these auctions…
IF the people that have a “True Realistic Winnable Claim” get a lawyer involved Oversnap is going to have to pay for their fees …IMO the evidence and appearance of Bad Faith are overwhelming.
(The” new and revised release’ *chuckle * although a good and honest move by Oversee it just shows how poorly Rust has handle this deal since day one…)
I am not suggesting people should sue , it’s a personal decision , lawsuits take long and it can consume your life if you are not careful .
“””I am referring to the Auctions on which you Won and halvarez bidded more than once, He in fact and effectively inflated the final price you paid, (not so hard to prove) if there were other bidders who cares?””
Well they are going to say if Brady bid $5K and Frank bid $6k and you bid $7K how are you going to prove the auction would have only went to $3K had Brady not bid?
“” The house bidder against you ( factor unknown to you ) the burden of proof is on them the way I see it.
I’m not sure that’s correct.
The burden of proof is on the one suing and seeking damages.
You have to prove your damages the defendant does not have to prove what your damages weren’t
Having said that, get the advice of counsel.
Hello, I’m curious, Is there a place to see every auction say since 2004 that’s open to the public not just those who participated in the auctions? i.e. to see all auctions all names and all bidders all whois and what went were? ect.. Would such a thing help to connect dots? Would it make new dots. I just happened to be reading about this and wondered if such a thing was available. Maybe somebody can point me somewhere, Thanks…
Scams
No there is no place that you can get access to all 1,000,000 auctions.
If there was, I would have pulled all the data and published results already
@MHB Ahh, o.k. I see. That was a wonderful analysis you did in regards to your auctions and in that blog you said “Of course once again we were in only in 1.2% of all auctions. That means we have no records on 98.8% of the auctions.”
Interesting; I guess the only way would be that all the participants would have to share data collectively on a wide scale, if they were at all interested. Otherwise it seems that signing the agreement would free snap from wrongdoing so to speak if anything else showed up outside of the “halverez” character. This is interesting. Thanks for the read and great blog by the way.
Scams
Actually no, all that hard work got us a release that I think lets you go after anything else that may come up other than Halvarez bidding.
Of course you need to consult your own attorney for his opinion
Most of the talking here, sounds like:
“If we get enough financial compensation, than we will not sue SnapNames.” And SnapNames would be able to stay in business. But which is basically a wrong attitude.
If any company with white collar fraudsters pay enough compensation, they can stay in business.
And this is not the way to fight or reduce white collar crime. As long as we only think about money in the first place, we will never get controll of crime.
And fraud within the domain industry will mainly remain the same. Because nobody made a propper attempt to fight the fraud and crime.
Members of the domain community will continue to be victims of fraudsters, because other members only cared about financial compensation, but not about fighting the crime, and to eradicate it.
As money and crime, are always closely related.
If a employee has to go, because he comited fraud, why has not the company have to go, as well, when the company did protect him for years?
Is justice not here to fight crime? Is it only here to protect the monitary system, with all its problems (crime, hunger, poverty, war, fraud, ecological destruction, etc., sending soldiers to war, to get killed there, etc.)?
Only here, so that we can restore some losses out of auctions. But not to make this world a better place, with less fraud. Less fraud within the domain industry, as well?
Why not take this chance, to wipe out SnapNames? Set a example, to prevent other white collar shill bidders from continuing their “daily fraud business”, they do, under protection of anonymity, under a name like “halvarez”, or just a other name or number (Sedo)?
.
Unless someone sees a big fault with the revised release agreement, then I plan to send it back signed in 24 hours. Thanks to Oversee.net for doing the right thing in this matter. Thanks to Mike for his analysis and for hosting this discussion and to Rick Schwartz and Howard Neu for their analysis too.
Posted by MBH:
“Well they are going to say if Brady bid $5K and Frank bid $6k and you bid $7K how are you going to prove the auction would have only went to $3K had Brady not bid?”
likewise who is to say that without halvarez the auction could have ended at 65 USD?
The Fox was encharged of the chicken pen.
Same goes for Auctions were he halavrez won and “You or I ” were the 2nd highest bidder, one that get me furious it’s name now on the hands of DomainSponsor.
(Rust refuses to even have a dialogue on these 2 type of scenarios, as a matter of fact some of their employees are semiclueless on exactly how the Auctions worked.)
and again thanks for letting people bring some issues “here” into the open, you could had quietly settle behind close doors.
does ebay shill bid? yes….
Do people still use them? yes…
soooo…
does sedo shill bid?
does namejet shill?
And, it could also have cut the other way. I might have bid $1000 on a proxy bid. halverez could have bid $800, pushing me to $825 or whatever the next increment was at that level. Since my previous bid was $70, it may be that halverez scared off someone who would have bid $700, but gave up when he saw it go to $825. So, I could be getting back $825 – $70 = $755, when, had there been no halverez, I would have had to pay $725, so I should only be getting back $100. The fact is, on many of these, we will never know. I reviewed every single auction that I was in with halverez, and my settlement looks pretty fair to me.
Howard
I agree with you.
At this point I plan on signing the release on Monday, taking the cash and moving on.
Shilling has gone on since auctions first started and will always go on. People here are lucky if they guy really knew what he was doing there would have been 1000 bidding id bots. They would have brought about little noise in the domaining community.
Great job Michael on the work. You did alot, and Howard Hoffman your analysis is right on. I only bid in auctions at the end never would put a proxy. I look for the last 10 minutes and as Howard said if I see a name that was at $70 bid to $800 I would skip that auction. If the auction were at $200 I would bid $300 or to $400. So I would bet that happened alot that bidders moved along and did not bid. So to say every name with that id bidding would have really been a $60 win is not true.
“however I read it to simply say your releasing claims against the bidding activity of Halvarez. Since Brady’s name does not even appear in the release I do not think you are waiving any rights against his other activities done outside of the bidder ID of Halvarez.”
“Release To Limit It Just To Halvarez”
Thats not what it implies – Nelson Brady’s name is not there per se Michael but the way they have worded it actually puts far more emphasis on Nelson Brady than it does his bidder id: Halvarez (even though they are one in the same….so far)
…Snapnames user “associated” (with the user name Halvarez)
They might as well have replaced associated with “Nelson Brady” then left off the bit in brackets…it means the same thing IMO
It would’nt be a problem “if” Brady only used one alias but “if” he used more than one you would be signing away any further claims on any past auctions that Nelson Brady (or any partners) were involved in from 2005 to 2009 – period.
While this would’nt make much difference to me in dollar terms it could be alot of money to many other domainers like yourself.
If they are so sure Brady only used one fake ID then they should’nt mind wording it something like:
…Snapnames bidding ID “Halvarez”
Hopefully they will get back to you with some clarification before everyone signs it.
.
Gazzip
The word back is they do not intend the release to read how your interpreting it.
You are only releasing your claims against the bidder Halvarez not any other Brady activity.
The whole idea of the release is to reduce litigation, not to increase it so I’m going to agree on their interpretation.
They are not going to change the release any further.
So your going to have to make your own call on this
And so it should only be releasing our claims against bidder Halvarez as that’s the only thing they have offered any compensation for.
I’ll contact them so I can get it in writing as it still looks more like of a legal loop hole to me…what’s that old saying “Interpretation is nine-tenths of the law” 🙂
Can I ask you who told you that so I can speak to the same guy ?
Many thanks for checking Michael, I appreciate it.
PS – I have always trusted the snapnames team/platform but I have never really trusted the strange habbits of “Halvarez” since someone made the following comments about him way back in 2006. (one of many)
Avensen – “Imho ‘Halvarez’ looks like a script working at Snapnames.”
http://www.namepros.com/domain-name-discussion/216933-has-halvarez-ever-won-an-auction.html
Looks like the guy was right !
Gazzip
I would direct your comments and concerns about the language in the revised release to Jeff K, president of Oversee, he left his e-mail address in a comment on this post
Great, thanks Michael 🙂
Frankly, I’m not a lawyer myself. But I would be very, very wary about signing this agreement even for the immediate case, for two reasons.
1. I truly believe that this was not just a one-man operation. Controls with so many millions of dollars floating around every day demand accounting from several sources. Even with Brady’s inside knowledge, such a systmatic looting of the system could not logically be committed by one man only.
2. Treble damages are put into place SPECIFICALLY for the general punitive calculations to cover legal costs, as well as to provide a substantial financial penalty to the complainant.
Now, I agree that a one- or two-time ripoff may not warrant this much trouble, but keep in mind that there is a lot more at stake. This is CRIMINAL territory. This activity is SPECIFICALLY outlawed all over the United States with regard to racketeering laws that are ALREADY on the books. I would submit that EVERY affected person file a criminal complaint in whatever jurisdiction you may be in against Oversee. While civil complaints may help get back the money in an expeditious manner, only a criminal complaint will add teeth to the regulation of an industry that, sadly, needs governmental intervention, at least temporarily.
Keep in mind that halvarez may NOT be the only entity. I understand that someone else had parsed through the data and made an educated determination that Brady only went through halvarez. But the investigation must be complete, thorough, and involve the entire management department of both Oversee and Snapnames.
Let’s face it: Martha Stewart spent six months for a LOT LESS than this. Granted, the laws were far more codified for her crimes, but existing racketeering laws should be sufficient to place Brady in deep doodoo, and perhaps make Oversee completely revamp the top leadership. Even if everyone else was clueless to Brady’s activities, the sheer lack of industrial knowledge by the leadership is enough to fire them all on their collective rear ends.
A domainer friend contacted me today asking if I signed my release yet?
They were thinking about signing theirs this week.
But, they were on the fence even with the new release.
They wanted my opinion which I politely refused.
Their biggest concern was that Snapnames/Oversee might not be around in the near future.
I said “no one knows”.
They thought under U.S. bankruptcy law, the creditors committee has the legal right to reclaim money sent out within the past 60 days of filing. (I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer.)
So, they were thinking to get the money quick just in case.
It got me thinking –
Has anyone received a payment yet?
Or, are they going to wait and see how many releases they receive before they commit?
Domain
There are provisions in Bankruptcy law to prevent what they call preferential treatment of payment to debtors, but I’m not sure what the time frame is.
My understanding is these funds may have already been placed into an escrow account so they maybe segregated and safe even if the “B” word comes into play, but as always check with your own attorney
yours truly couldnt agree more, myself, but not everyone is as clever as you seem to be. Or as yours truly seem to be! HA! :-p
I have a website aswell.