you never been to court have you? fight the battles that you can win not ones you want to win.. in fact anything you know you can't win you shouldn't even bring up. Go after what they said in the early refund responses
They attorneys taking it on contingency on the amounts above and beyond the offered settlements sure don't seem to agree with you. Everyone can also see the clear and explicit promises of 1:1 Bitcoin refunds both in public and in private communications. By all means, anyone who somehow didn't get the message that 1:1 refunds on failure were part of the deal and didn't make their purchasing decision because of it: take the settlement leave the assets for the recovery of those of us who relied on the original terms.
You missed what I said.. I said go for what they said in the early refund replies.. which was what you say. I am just saying don't think they advertised the selling of the miners at btc prices. They never posted that like Avalon did.
Should just harp on what they promised as refunds in full btc.
Why give them an area for them to make a case.. just focus on the refund side of the promise
At the most basic level the courts are bound to uphold what is fair and right... they will do this though it usually takes a while.
$5,600 back in August does equal $5,600 today in us dollars, sort of... Which, for all intensive purposes, is what it is as the USD is the coin of the realm. So, for this part I am saying that you can take the refund (offer) as it stands and be happy, or try door #2
#2 Now let me be clear, this likely does not apply to all of you:
If you have in your possession a written sales agreement, signed, that has all the transactions listed in btc and can prove with transaction records that you compensated them for the trade in btc you have a good case.
Again, contract law is very specific. If I agree in writing to trade you ten magic beans for a unicorn and the contract guarantees a refund of said beans, in this case which has been both expressed, and implied from HF Admin repeatedly {btc=beans}, then when my unicorn don't show I shall have my beans, not any beans, my magic beans.
Point of order: A contractual agreement was entered into by two parties, one party is in breach of contract. End of story; to what extent the courts will decide.
The fact that these are dated products, meaning their value rapidly decreases in a short amount of time, is also a compensable argument.
BTW, best hope that the San Francisco judge doesn't have a twinkie in his eye, otherwise Team Skropenis wins.