Quote from: Flying Hellfish on May 09, 2014, 01:59:13 AM

Quote from: opieum2 on May 09, 2014, 01:20:10 AM

Quote from: Flying Hellfish on May 09, 2014, 01:09:05 AM

Quote from: FrictionlessCoin on May 08, 2014, 09:33:32 PM

Quote from: opieum2 on May 08, 2014, 08:43:54 PM

Quote from: grumpybearsgirl on May 08, 2014, 07:01:49 PM

so glad we got our refund. what a mess.

Awesome that you got a refund.....that is the equivalent of stepping to the side as the shit hits the fan...bravo Cheesy

also your experience in getting a refund sets a precedent that they should be issuing refunds and were discriminatory in who they issued them to. A huge legal mess they are in now with that.

Here's the thing though, he got his refund because someone else paid for his unit.

Which means that AMT will refund you, IF they have the money. I don't think they have the money.

This type of business model is name after an Italian gentlemen.

Sure sounds like AMT is very shortly going to find out that there is no legal definition for an investomer. A person is either a customer or an investor and it likely won't be long until AMT finds out the legal rights and the legal recourse for each class of person are VERY different.

Because we gave them money and expected a return on that investment....which is what ROI literally is....and is covered under the MPP...it can easily be argued that we are investors in the company and as such AMT would have a fiduciary duty to provide us with the increase or break even of said investment. Interesting point.....and might be cause for yet another case seeing as the class action covers other aspects of product misrepresentation. As far as it being a Ponzi scheme.....technically its not....I say that because they actually do provide a product flawed and misrepresented as it is, it is indeed a physical product. BUT the investomer concept AND the fact that they refer to giving us an ROI via the MPP they pretty much opened up to the fact that we are in fact investors. It could be argued that way at least in a courtroom with relative ease. But I don't think the current complaint covers that.

The Ponzi comment was sort of a joke, they are obviously not running a true ponzi, but it's resemblance to one is uncanny.

I really don't think any of these manufacture's want to argue in court or anywhere else they were selling investments. They are in enough of a shit storm already I doubt they want to get into SEC target range as well.

Right but that point is still very valid....the investment thing might actually be enough, to get the SEC in there. considering that alot of the elements are there, its a possible route...least it will put a stop to this pre-order nonsense and force businesses to actually focus on raising capital for on hand items. All in all these are sadly growing pains of this industry. It might actually be a good thing in the long run for everyone.