Interest Check- Owners joining together to file class action lawsuit

[F451]

One day. I will get a pony.

I had a pony! Lol

 

[Philip]

The apathy that I am seeing in this thread is discouraging.

Now Harley f’n Davidson on the other hand, now I’m going to continue hating them pricks. But in the plus side, in another couple years I believe they themselves will be dismantled in a similar fashion.

I would love to sue H-D just for the fun of it.

Sue all of them: H-D, Armanino, Faster Faster ABC (which is not Alta Motors), and of course BRP. The more -- the merrier.

If the 20 people who voted Yes in this poll want to contribute $250-500 each (for a combined total of $5-10K) to hire a good lawyer, then I think we have a very good chance.

We can hope to lift some of these ridiculous NDAs (many of which are not even relevant anymore), obtain and publish a full list of parts suppliers, and very likely get wiring diagrams and bills of material in our hands, or at least officially in the hands of select owners who will sign a new NDA but at least would be able to openly repair their bikes and assist others with diagnostics and repairs.

 

[VINSANITY]

I would contribute $250 - $500 to retain a lawyer - don’t want to sue the founders in any way as there product is just awesome - like you stated getting NDA’s lifted so we can buy parts from former Alta suppliers - releasing technical documents like wiring diagrams and programming so we can self service the bikes I think would be the main goals.

 

[leeo45]

The apathy that I am seeing in this thread is discouraging.

I had assumed this thread was a hypothetical poll. With your gentle prodding, here are my thoughts and observations on harsh reality .....

I can only speak for myself and in my case it is definitely not apathy. I am committed to keeping my ALTA running for as long as possible and in fact, I just bought a second one. I've read every post in this thread and every other thread in the forum, every piece of publicly available information on Faster, Faster,Inc. and the Armanino ABC, plus as much as I can find on the California ABC regulations.

I am not a lawyer, but I've been involved in a few too many corporate lawsuits and I simply don't see a strong opportunity for a favorable outcome here. In fact, I think there would be the potential for liability with a lawsuit outside the ABC process. I am not aware of any blatant negligence or mismanagement by the company or by the Assignee; admittedly without any visibility to the 2018 financing efforts. The ABC process is an approved mechanism in the state of California to address business situations like this and it is one of Armanino's core practices. Without legal guidance otherwise, it is reasonable to assume they are administering the ABC within the regulations even if we don't like the way it is going.

Binding NDAs, confidentiality agreements, and protected proprietary information are standard business practice especially where IP is involved. I would not expect any of those to be released until after the ABC is completed. Even then it might be dependent on the disposition of the assets and IP; however I think post-ABC will be our best chance to gain access to that information.

Additionally, it seems that the ABC process in California provides a lot of protection for the ABC parties as long as they follow the published GA and Notice to Creditors; assuming those documents were correctly prepared. There are also defined steps that creditors need to take within that process to even be legally considered. As far as I know, nobody here has formally filed a notice making a claim as a creditor. I believe that without that notice we are just casual interested parties hoping for goodwill from someone. The bar date for the ABC is April 26th so that timeline is getting quite short if anything needs to be done.

-- BTW, in case people are not aware, there is precedent in the automotive industry and in California that warranty holders can be considered as creditors. Unfortunately, the Faster, Faster ABC as currently framed would put Redshift owners as low priority creditors.--

It is more than possible that I have missed a key piece of the puzzle or I may not have access to some key info that others have seen. I'll jump on board yesterday if someone knows something that is strong grounds for a legal filing.

OK, I'll return to my cave now.....

 

[Philip]

As far as I know, nobody here has formally filed a notice making a claim as a creditor. I believe that without that notice we are just casual interested parties hoping for goodwill from someone. The bar date for the ABC is April 26th so that timeline is getting quite short if anything needs to be done

I think at least @snydes and @Bloak have filed claims to cover their battery repairs. I can file a battery repair claim as well.

Also, EVERYONE else on this forum can file a claim to buy a replacement rear fender, subframe, display, kickstand, battery module, BCU, ACM, throttle, etc.

Does this make it a better case?

 

[snydes]

The link to file a claim... https://www.fileaclaim.info/FasterFaster-ABC/ has no specific option for an owner with a warranty claim. I filled it out as completely as possible with all the applicable information I could think to provide. I of course have heard absolutely nothing in response.

 

[Philip]

The link to file a claim... Faster Faster (ABC), LLC - FileClaim.info has no specific option for an owner with a warranty claim. I filled it out as completely as possible with all the applicable information I could think to provide. I of course have heard absolutely nothing in response.

Thanks for the link. Just submitted my claim. Notice the "We will get in touch with you shortly".

 

[snydes]

"We will get in touch with you shortly".

It should read "We will disregard you fully".

 

[leeo45]

short·ly
/ˈSHôrtlē/
adverb

1. no sooner than is absolutely required by law

2. possibly this calendar year if you are a sixth tier unsecured creditor

 

[leeo45]

I don't know what could make a better case or if there even is a valid legal case. We need some Redshift riding bankruptcy attorneys on this forum !

[rambling]

My non-lawyer opinion: For Redshift owners with an active, unfulfilled warranty claim; e.g. the Code 36 battery fault where we know ALTA was replacing batteries, it could be beneficial to file a creditor claim at the website. At least you are formally on the creditor list and have established a record of the claim for possible action. For those of us with unexpired warranties, but no active fault or issue, the valuation of a creditor claim is much more challenging. There are some limited precedents in the automotive industry in bankruptcy proceedings in California, however remember that an ABC is not a bankruptcy under federal law and is treated differently with fewer regulations and less oversight.

Based on everything I have read, a key problem for us is that there is no going concern; i.e. there is no more Faster, Faster, Inc., no ALTA Motors, and nobody bought the company outright. There has been no assignment of obligations and there is no entity with ongoing responsibility for providing parts, warranty, or support. I think this is where an insolvency attorney in the state of California would need to weigh in on whether there is any opportunity for a claim or as proposed in this thread, a class action suit on behalf of the customers (Redshift owners). I certainly don't know the answer to this. Based on the few automotive cases I read about late last year when all of this was breaking, there was very limited success and benefit in pursuing this even with much larger companies when the company was being liquidated and there was limited inventory. (Chapter 7).

I have zero behind the scenes insight into the ABC proceedings and I haven't even stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, however based on everything we have seen and heard so far, I think our best chance for getting access to drawings, parts lists, vendor lists, and releases from confidentiality agreements will be after the conclusion of the ABC and working with whomever then has ownership of such items. The Assignor (Armanino) is obligated to retain all of that so long as they perceive a possible monetary value and the ABC is active.

It may also be worth noting that a pending lawsuit could and likely would drag this out for quite a while.

[/rambling]

 

[strider]

IANAL but I agree w/ @leeo45 IMO the only people who will win anything will be the lawyers. Who exactly are you going to sue? Faster, Faster/Alta is dead. BRP bought the stuff of any value. Blood from a stone and all that. Further, the info we want has been sold to BRP so Armanino/Faster, Faster/Alta cannot give us that info. I feel the money spent on attorneys would be better used to reverse engineer what we need. I would support some attorney time to review the former employee's NDAs and determine whether they are still valid once the ABC is completed. If we could get those lifted that would help. We could then petition BRP or whomever to allow the previous vendors to produce parts for us - I think letters from us would go further than letters from lawyers. Lawyers make corporations say No. They are more inclined to say yes to people who are potential customers.

 

[Philip]

BRP will ignore all letters, unless they have something to gain or to lose. They have been doing this all along. Many people tried talking to them already, many times.

We have 17 days left. After that things will stay just as they are.

 

[Philip]

The May issue of MXA says that BRP "didn't buy the motorcycle".

 

[Tuner]

From what I gather......
BRP opted not to purchase existing motorcycles and / or motorcycle specific inventory.
Motorcycles and motorcycle specific assets were sold through various avenues via Armanino.

 

[Inc]

Guys, I hate for my first post on this forum to be negative (have a Redshift SM and was happy to find this place) but there are absolutely no legal avenues to pursue here. You cannot get a court order to dissolve the NDAs and Alta’s obligations to bike owners were discharged as part of its dissolution, and that’s pretty much the end of it. No, you can’t sue BRP, and Faster Faster LLC is not a separate business entity, it was just DBA Alta Motors.

 

[Redwolf]

Guys, I hate for my first post on this forum to be negative (have a Redshift SM and was happy to find this place) but there are absolutely no legal avenues to pursue here. You cannot get a court order to dissolve the NDAs and Alta’s obligations to bike owners were discharged as part of its dissolution, and that’s pretty much the end of it. No, you can’t sue BRP, and Faster Faster LLC is not a separate business entity, it was just DBA Alta Motors.

Keep your facts to yourself, and get out of my fantasy world!

 

[Philip]

Guys, I hate for my first post on this forum to be negative (have a Redshift SM and was happy to find this place) but there are absolutely no legal avenues to pursue here. You cannot get a court order to dissolve the NDAs and Alta’s obligations to bike owners were discharged as part of its dissolution, and that’s pretty much the end of it. No, you can’t sue BRP, and Faster Faster LLC is not a separate business entity, it was just DBA Alta Motors.

Finally, we have our own lawyer, apparently. Thanks for joining.

 

[revoltlution]

The May issue of MXA says that BRP "didn't buy the motorcycle".

April 2019 issue of AMA's American Motorcyclist... not even a whisper of the Alta deal. Hmmm, why no more interest in motorcycle BRP?