Juan Jimenez wrote:
Not nearly as black and white as you think, particularly when you consider
that those people who placed deposits received substantially what they
ordered (the kits). The BD-5D deposits are another story, I don't know what
happened to those. Nevertheless, the implication is that Jim Bede stole the
escrows. He did not. He came out of the bankruptcy damn near penniless. The
company may not have been managed as well as it should have, but there is
zero evidence anyone's money was stolen. It's that simple.

Escrows are VERY, VERY, VERY black and white!

It is possible that the terms of the escrow didn't adequately protect
the consumer, but escrows are very black and white. This is one area
of law that is pretty damn straightforward.

The fact that Bede came out of bankruptcy "damn near penniless" is
immaterial in evaluating whether customers were treated fairly.

When companies go out of business, people suffer. It is unfortunate
that most companies continue to receive merchandise from vendors and
money from customers long after the decision to close the doors is
made.

The fact that there is "zero evidence anyone's money was stolen" means
little when there is zero evidence that Bede was honest, either.
Normally, there is presumption of innocence, but when customers do not
receive goods they payed for, the needle starts to swing in the other
direction.