Steve was on the board earlier. Why did he leave? I think things got too hot, he didn't have any great answers to tough questions and people stopped buying the company line (understandably, as TATF wasn't backing up what they were saying). We may never get him back to the board, but I don't think that means we can't get him to open up to some degree to some group of people.
If dupedbysteve truly owned trees and was truly successful in working with the Texas AG to get Steve to pay him back some money, then others could follow his example. My recollection is that duped talked about owning only a few trees - 100 or so. That's pretty small potatoes for Steve to pay back. What did that cost him, a couple thousand bucks to avoid a lawsuit or potential government intervention? He gets a benefit too, gets rid of one angry investor.
But how many investors do you think would be successful before Steve would just say No? Is he going to just keeping opening up his wallet and handing everybody back their money, or will he say, take me to court? He didn't even pay you back everything he owed, did he belmont? How many people does it take before it's costing Steve more to keep it quiet than it is to be taken to court? Unfortunately, I don't think it would take many. 5? 10? 50? One big investor? Do I think I am one of the lucky 50 or one of the unlucky 3000? I don't like those odds.
I think there is a good chance TATF would get shut down or at least have significant costs if Steve gets taken to court. Then it would probably go bankrupt, whatever property it has would be sold (imagine how successful we would be trying to get a good price for a custom tree-processing machine), government, lawyers and other creditors would take their chunk first.
Then what? What do we get? I think all we would get is this: the current value of our trees. We are not Steve's creditors, we are tree owners (at least, belmont, I am). If the company fails, why would we get anything at all? There was no guarantee that our trees would grow. If the land is sold, will somebody buy it to run a teak farm and keep raising our trees? Doubtful. If the land has gone up in value as much as some people have said, it's not because people are eager to start teak farms (since they are so successful). Farmland is cheap. Land goes up in value because people want to build on it. If they want to build on it, guess what they will do with all the trees? Cut them down.
Or imagine that the land can't be sold because there is a lawsuit in progress and the land is in contention. Will anyone be caring for the trees? Not saying that they are doing that now, but how much incentive would there be to care for the trees if the company's going under? Zero.
Again, we are NOT Steve's creditors. He doesn't owe us a thing except what he contracted to do, which as people have discussed is pretty minimal when you boil it down. We are tree owners (at least, belmont, I am). If the company fails, Steve can't meet his obligations to care for our trees - so maybe we can prove that he owes us money then. After the 10-year battle in court that people have told us to expect (think there might be some lawyer fees for that?), we finally win, the judge tells Steve to pay up. OK, we get at the back of the line after everybody else he owes and see what's left when we get there. Good luck with that. Does anyone think that will be more than 25% of what you put in in the first place? My guess is that 25% is pretty optimistic.
There has been talk about fairness to the people that haven't invested yet - warn them. I agree. Why should anyone else get stuck? However, I don't think you are considering fairness to the 3000 people that have bought trees with TATF when you suggest trying to follow dupedbysteve's example. I believe it would gut the company fairly quickly and the rest of us would be left with the stinking carcass to pick over. 50 people get their money back and 2950 are left holding the bag. Thank you for your fairness. If you don't agree, please describe to me how it would be different - what good outcome do you see for what you are suggesting? Steve says, "Ok, guys, I give up", converts his incredibly valuable property into cash and there is plenty to go around.... Yay!!
I think somebody has projected a couple of months ago that the best we can expect for our trees is that we get our original investment out. You know what? That sounds pretty good to me compared to getting my cut of what I described above. If I have to wait 10 years either way for the outcome, I feel like letting it ride could be more successful than taking your advice.
And if we can get Steve to the table, maybe he would be willing to make some concessions at some point. If he honestly didn't know that his dream wouldn't match up with reality, maybe he would be willing to extend the final cut of the trees to 30 years or to a point where they would become somewhat more valuable. I don't know what concessions he could make that would be helpful or increase our chances of getting some money out of our investments, but maybe we could come up with something. The discussion can't even start until we get to a negotiation with Steve. My impression is that your plan would not help us do that.
So from my perspective, if you can convince enough people to topple TATF over, then you cost me 75% of my investment. At least. If you fail at what you seem to be trying to do, I may get nothing or I may get my full investment back. Or TATF may topple on its own, and I get the same result.
Your money is not at stake here, mine is. I would appreciate it if you stop trying to decide what's best for my money.
