Aerotech Investors

Please forgive me if this has already been asked.

In wading through the Aerotech BK papers, it notes that the original investors gave up their positions for "no consideration".

Do I take this to mean that they took a bath to the tune of $900,000 plus?

Did they see ANY ROI at all ?

Gus

Reply to
Augustus McCrae
Loading thread data ...

Yes.

One cannot tell from the public documents.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

the Chapter 11 Voluntary Petition and the Request for Bids/Notice of Auction has been uploaded to alt.binaries.model.rockets

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

a patent search at

formatting link
"Rosenfield, Gary C." as 'inventor' yeilds the following

[ from
formatting link
]

Patent No. Title

1 5,579,636 Pyrotechnic valve, igniter and combustion preheater for hybrid rocket motors 2* 5,212,946 Reloadable/modular solid propellant rocket motor 3 5,123,355 Rocket ignition assembly and means and methods for making and using same 4 5,054,397 Parachute ejection and recovery system for rockets 5 5,004,186 Finlock alignment mechanism for rockets

note that all patents assigned to Aerotech, Inc. (Las Vegas, NV) except where marked (*), which is assigned to Industrial Solid Propulsion (Las Vegas, NV)

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

who was Dan Meyers ?

and who was John Coons ?

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Dan Meyer was the co-founder of ISP and is an engineer. He got frustrated with Gary's constant pay Gary first tactics and left. I do not know precisely when he was bought out as a stockholder. Certainly no later than when Melodi Rosenfield was bought out (by Coker, Gates, Biba). Follow the money :)

I only know what other people feel compelled to tell me, which seems to be alot, but I put no affirmative effort into folowing the trevails of AT/ISP.

Don't know about Coons, but Paul Hans was also a co-owner at the time of Melodi, and Dan. Paul financed most of the molds.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Hmm. What leads you to this conclusion? AT has become _the_ major supplier of mid and high power hobby rocket motors. Prior to the fire, they had far more availability than any other composite manufacturer. I'm certainly no business expert but it looks to my untrained eye like Gary has been very successful with AT. As far as I can tell (as an outside observer), the biggest setbacks AT had were Gary's divorce and the fire, and those kinds of things could happen to any business.

Reply to
RayDunakin

Gary personal bankruptcy

AT bankruptcy

ISP bankruptcy

EVERY partner pissed and left

Monopoly but STILL cannot deliver in a timely fashion (fire or not).

Uses a router to cut propellant and stores DRUMS of the scrap in the CENTER of the shop in an INDUSTRIAL PARK and REFUSED approaches for offsite storage and immediate propellant manufacture after the incident.

Underinsured.

A "dick" on a personal level.

Of 2000 zealots (a 90% reduction from 10 years ago) Impressive :-)

I agree

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Reply to
Phil Stein

Yes. He does.

To quote Ray Dunakin himself from today:

"Wrong on both counts. I do think there should be some balance in how we approach these things."

This coming from a TRA apologist and Bankruptcy apologist.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Then what about YOUR bankruptcy, jerry? What does that tell us about you?

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

The bankruptcy was the result of an accident which was made worse by the fire department. That has nothing to do with Gary's business abilities.

Reply to
RayDunakin

The quote you used is from an entirely different subject (environmentalism). And what about your fire, and your bankruptcy? Ever hear the old saying about people who live in glass houses??

Sheesh!

Reply to
RayDunakin

  1. There was no fire. Period.

  1. There was no corporate bankruptcy and I for one hope nobody ever steals your entire busines then sues you to cover it up, then you get divorced. I would not wish that on anyone.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I guess the lawsuits from victim's relatives for unsafe working conditions, IIRC, wasn't the fault of management either?

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Reply to
Mark Simpson

My understanding is the victims are limited by workman's comp as to what they can sue for.

They are limited to $50k ea from the FD too.

The lawsuits are from neighbors lawyers and investors.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Reply to
Phil Stein

If you say so. I do not agree.

Phil

Reply to
Phil Stein

You are an apologist to the end. Dead people or not. You are truly sick.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

AT was insulated from claims by the offending employee by workmans comp. In hindsight that is a law that is good for business.

Too bad the FD burnred down all his neighbors and insulated themselves from lawsuits witha self-serving $50,000 liability limit. That has to be a challengeable thing. Too bad AT doesn't have the money to persue it and their lawyers (who were paid over $750,000 that I know of) are primarilly interested in running up the bills on travel and minutia, and NOT persuing the core issues.

On that point Gary was screwed severely by each and every one of his "employees" and "professionals" throughout this debacle.

The system is broken when your own hired professionals are determined to simply be vultures.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.