4) NO RECOURSE: By executing the swap of AMHash for AMHashLC, the owner relinquishes the right for any direct or indirect claims arising out of holding the AMHash contract against any party involved in the creation, performance or sale of the contract AMHash.
It would seem appropriate to link the "no recourse" clause to the performance of the agreement. In other words, people should have full recourse opyions until this new cobtract makes good on its payout in April. Otherwise, people are surrenderingbtheir rights to take steps to recover their funds for just a paper promise to pay
The clause is [likely] as legally binding as the quasi-contract you've entered into with AMHash.
If I steal ten bucks from you, and tell you that you can have a dollar back, but only if you sign a contract promising not to report me to the cops, that contract is null and void.
Not as clearcut in this case, but you get my drift.
So what would you consider as an alternative to accepting this "quasi-legal" option if you had purchased any shares in this failed venture?
a) hire a lawyer who would inevitably cost you much more than 1.2 minus 0.3 BTC or
b) take a flight to Taiwan and find FC so you could hold up a sign to him demanding justice
c) take the offer and buy 0.3 BTC worth of self-help books so you would never get fooled again
d) not take the offer thereby potentially losing all of your entire investment amount because you doubt the validity of the quasi-contract
e) use your gov't contacts to contact another gov't and "avenge your losses" (physical harm is certainly not the answer - ever -)
In all seriousness though, does anyone have an rational thought on the matter? Does anyone out there believe so strongly that they have a case that they are willing to buy up other peoples shares at a discount to reap the rewards of litigation?