I know there's one general thread for this that people are being asked to post to, but this is relevant and important to the Burst.net/UltraSpeedUSA issue, and this is finally getting somewhere, yet it's buried under almost 6 pages of rhetoric that people aren't likely to dig through to see this. I'd like to suggest that this new thread be used and direct any irrelevant replies to the other thread, but keep one alive that is relevant to the issues... after all, that's what we all want. Did Burst really buy out UltraSpeedUSA legitimately? Why the deceit?

This pertains to a response from the other thread in question -- which needn't be read to understand or cover the issue I bring up here and now. This is in regards to the fact that Burst buys out companies and claims they just bought "assets" and aren't liable for any such things as refunds, payment owed to employee's and clients of the company they claim to not have actually bought. This brings up the main issue. Did they buy them out or not? I mean, how did they claim they legitimately obtained these users without their permission? If they aren't with the same company, their hosting contracts are null and void! I can tell you this, because I was helping a client that was hosted with truehosting and was owed a refund or hosting. Burst bought out truehosting and this client gets a bunch of emails one after the other, saying he needs to confirm the account to be hosted, wherein he would be now signing up with Burst.net, not continuing his contract he agreed to with truehosting.

And, please Burst, stop acting like people are just envious of your great success and just pick on you when you buy out a large company. You lied about how many accounts you bought from truehosting, for one thing! You claimed you acquired around 2,000+ accounts. It was never that many. Not even close. I checked their systems and saw how many they had and most of them were domains and accounts like "abc.com", etc. that they never had. Many were bogus accounts and you knew this and still made your claims. It makes me question the new buyout and how many accounts you always like to boast about. Finally, it's not that many anyway and is no excuse for the poor treatment of these user's that are being tricked into hosting with you, as far as myself and many other's are concerned!

Further, he wasn't offered hosting that was already paid for, he'd have had to sign up with them and pay them, since truehosting ripped him off and Burst did nothing about it or anything like that to help any of the many, many client's that had problems with truehosting. Seems like an odd and wrong way to grab clients and it seemed to be a desperate move, once again, in my opinion. There's something deceitful in these actions of acquiring company's, and all the while not doing anything for anyone but themselves, in an effort to get more users to get more revenue. And, the thing that gets me about that, is all the people that suffered enough with the truehosting issue initially and then once again with the Burst issue when TH sold out to them -- all the time Burst was claiming they did it to help the TH client's, not because they just wanted to get more clients any possible way they could. Now, it happens again? The main issue I brought up, was that you couldn't possibly buy another company's user accounts, without their consent, unless you buy the company. That's not legal, since those accounts are not considered assets like computers and typewriters and hardware are.

So, you either don't have the legal standing to do this, or you must claim liability for any debts and the like the company you bought out had incurred. It's that simple. Again, have your legal representative(s) contact me and I'll explain the specifics to them and answer any questions they might have. Alternatively, you can be enlightened of these facts, if you seek legal counsel to inform you of these aspects. I'd like for you to cover those issues, for once, and explain exactly and accurately, how you aren't liable, yet still somehow claim you've legally and properly obtained the user accounts in question. If you didn't buy the company, you didn't buy the users. The user's never signed up for your service with your company, and you know that they'd have to do exactly that!

So, which is it? A plot to make people sign up with your company, thinking they have to re-instate their hosting contract (what you probably call a 'confirmation of stay' or something similar), or do you admit to the liability after all? I'm very interested in this, because it affects the clients and myself directly -- and it has to be one or the other, or this is not a legitimate buyout and you never have and never will actually be legitimately hosting these users.
--
Regards,
Tim Greer: chatmaster@c-zone.net | Tel: (530) 247-1749
Programming: CGI, Perl, C/C++, ASP, SQL, PHP and more.
Server & network administration, security, consulting,
Installation & configuration. Unix/Linux/FreeBSD & NT.


[Edited by Tim Greer on 02-05-2001 at 06:43 PM]

Okay, in the other thread, Burst said that the people will just be signing up with them. So, that is when they will actually be a client. I don't see how this is actually continuing people's hosting contracts, but I guess you can consider it as Burst giving you the same deal you got before. As for the rest of the issues, your guess is as good as mine. However...

I just don't like how their last buyout and emails made people think they were continuing to be hosted on the same type of service, when they'd actually be signing up. I hope all the accounting was done properly and no one decides they want a refund, instead of being hosted on a new company they had no choice about, or face the fact that they won't be able to get a refund. This is what I mean about forced hosting on Burst. It's them or lose money you paid to the previous company. I nthe client's best interests? You decide.
--
Regards,
Tim Greer: chatmaster@c-zone.net | Tel: (530) 247-1749
Programming: CGI, Perl, C/C++, ASP, SQL, PHP and more.
Server & network administration, security, consulting,
Installation & configuration. Unix/Linux/FreeBSD & NT.

It's still fishy, no matter which way you go. Just like the whole TH deal. I hope you're right and that no one tries to redress monetary issues, because they will be truly screwed.

Thanks for the support to everyone that's been level headed and fair. I have my suspicions and reasons to have posted, which most people are aware of. This stems to the latest at:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=5427&pagenumber=5

So, I say this to the few one's that lack do the comprehension and lie to be hostile:

Well, I've said all I possibly can. What problems I have with this and why. If 3rd party entities can't deal with it, too bad. Most people have told me they agree these are valid concerns. For the people that don't agree, aren't involved or don't care. It's getting old coming here and finding some dolt personally attacking me, because he doesn't like that I have expressed concerns of mine about these valid issues.

Therefore, anyone that truly needs this BS in their life, can have it. I can't be anymore clear about the issues without taking more time than I care to, to properly explain them in enough detail (for some of the people that seem to desperately need it). So, have at it. I'm not going to clarify or post to some new maniacs' post and re-explain it again. Personally, this is as far as I go, I've had it and I'm done. There's always going to be someone that will argue the points, no matter what, so they can argue to themselves.

I'm not going to even waste my time reading this board anymore. So, make up whatever you like, try and ridicule me with your best attempts at wit and see who it impresses. A point has been made, if people can't accept that, well, they are doomed to be miserable. :-)
--
Regards,
Tim Greer: chatmaster@c-zone.net | Tel: (530) 247-1749
Programming: CGI, Perl, C/C++, ASP, SQL, PHP and more.
Server & network administration, security, consulting,
Installation & configuration. Unix/Linux/FreeBSD & NT.

Although I can see that there would be valid concerns especially from people who paid annually. I think when you buy a DBA you don't buy the debts.
If you buy a corporation, you buy it with its liabilities. DBA's are not seperate entities and their debts are those of their owners.
I am not a lawyer, but this is what I understand. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I know nothing at all about the Burst/Ultraspeed transaction or sale, nor do I know anything about the specifics of the agreement they worked out or anything directly related to that transaction. That being said...

buys out companies and claims they just bought "assets" and aren't liable for any such things as refunds, payment owed to employee's and clients of the company they claim to not have actually bought

It is perfectly legal for one company to buy just the assets of another company. And customer accounts can be considered assets in most cases (I'm not a lawyer or an accountant, so there may be some requirements/prerequisites that I am missing for this - but in *most* cases customer accounts are considered assets. But of course it depends on how Ultraspeed listed customer accounts on their balance sheets and other documents).

If Burst simply did an asset purchase, then no, they are not responsible for any debts/liabilities/leases/refunds/etc. HOWEVER, although they are buying the customer, they cannot legally charge the customer's credit card for hosting without getting the customer's authorization (thus the reason your friend got e-mails requesting he authorize them to continue his hosting account).

If you buy a corporation, you buy it with its liabilities. DBA's are not seperate entities and their debts are those of their owners.
I am not a lawyer, but this is what I understand. Please correct me if I am wrong.

No, the type of entity really has nothing to do with it. It's the type of purchase-and-sale agreement that is created. If an acquiring company purchases just the assets of the acquired company (meaning the acquired company would dissolve after all the assets are transfered), the acquiring company does not assume any debts. If the acquiring company is purchasing the entire company, it does assume the debts.

Note one thing - although a domain name (i.e. ultraspeedusa.com) would be considered an asset, a company name would not be - thus if an acquiring company is going to create a "division" or a "subsidiary" out of the acquired company, then almost certainly what they have (in a legal sense) done is purchase the entity, regardless of whether they intended to just buy assets or not. If, however, they integrate everything into their own existing operations, then that doesn't apply.

But no - if in fact Burst did an asset-only purchase, and that purchase was conducted within the general accounting and legal rules for such asset-only purchases, they are not responsible for the debts/liabilities of Ultraspeed USA.

That being said, I think most acquiring hosting companies would honor any pre-payments made to the acquired host, even if it is an asset-only sale, and I find it quite surprising that Burst is not doing so here. It's not a matter of law, but rather a matter of good will. And from what I have seen on these forums, Burst needs all the good will they can get!

Jason

[Edited by Jason Ellis on 02-05-2001 at 09:44 PM]

Originally posted by Jason Ellis
That being said, I think most acquiring hosting companies would honor any pre-payments made to the acquired host, even if it is an asset-only sale, and I find it quite surprising that Burst is not doing so here. It's not a matter of law, but rather a matter of good will.

Well since I don't know the details 100% of the sale, I cannot comment on that. I will say however, that 'business' and 'goodwill' have little to do with eachother. Business is money, goodwill is something altogether different and I don't see an automatic connection between the two. I know this isn't what people want, but I think this is the reality.

You know, account lists have been in the news with all the DotCom failures. In auctioning off assets to satisfy creditors, they are sometimes seen as the most valuable item. However, many companies have been prevented legally from doing so because their privacy agreements forbid the disclosure of the information.

Take a look at UltraSpeedUSA's:

5. Confidentiality and Proprietary Rights.

5.1 Confidentiality. Both parties acknowledge that: (1) the other party is the owner of valuable trade secrets, and other proprietary information and license same from others, (2) in the performance of the UltraSpeed USA Services, both parties shall receive or become aware of such information as well as other confidential and proprietary information concerning the other party's business affairs, finances, properties, methods of operation and other data (hereinafter collectively referred to as ("Confidential Information"), and (3) unauthorized disclosure of any Confidential Information would irreparably damage the owner or supplier of such Confidential Information.

5.2 Non-Disclosure. Both parties agree that, except as directed by the other party or as provided in this paragraph, neither party will at any time during or after the term of this Agreement and for a period of three(3) years after any such termination disclose any Confidential Information to any person or entity, or permit any person or entity to examine and/or make copies of any reports or any documents prepared by the other party or that come into the party's possession or under the party's control that relates to Confidential Information; and that upon termination of this Agreement, both parties will turn over to the other party all documents, papers, and other matter in such party's possession or under such party's control that contain or relates to such Confidential Information. Both parties shall notify the other party, prior to disclosure of the information to the other party, that it considers the information to be confidential. Confidential Information shall not include information that; (1) is already lawfully known to or independently developed by the receiving party; (2) is in the public domain through no fault of the receiving party; (3) is lawfully obtained from a third party without restrictions; or (4) is required to be disclosed by law, regulation or governmental order.

5.3 Injunctive Relief. Both parties acknowledge that disclosure of any Confidential Information by the other party will give rise to irreparable injury to the owner of such information, inadequately compensable in damages. Accordingly, either party may seek and obtain injunctive relief against the breach or threatened breach of the foregoing undertakings, in addition to any other legal remedies which may be available.



It is misleading of Burst to suggest they are buying the accounts when it appears all they can legally buy is the name and the servers. It appears that if they contact UltraSpeed's customers with a "confirmation of stay" it will be a confirmation that confidential information was disclosed to a third party.

Anybody have a brother-in-law who is a lawyer?

BurstNET™ is indeed honoring pre-payment on accounts.
We honored all of the True Hosting prepaid accounts, (except those we knew we falsely claimed...ie, clients claiming 2-3 years prepay, when we knew only max one year payments were accepted)
With Ultraspeed, the accounts ledger was in order, unlike True Hosting. So, we know exactly who is paid, and who is not.
Prepaid accounts will be honored by BurstNET™, including the few dedicated server accounts that have paid in advance.

Sean R.
BurstNET™


[Edited by BurstNET on 02-06-2001 at 01:30 AM]

The post above doesn't answer how much resellers pricing will go up.

If I sell a new website and my new client expects what he asked for, will the bandwidth, disk space and prices be exactly the same??

Current Ultraspeed USA resellers can resell future site at the same prices/features.

Sean R.
BurstNET™

Does this also mean when the typical 30-90 days runs out?

Not sure what you mean...by I think you mean wil we raise it 90 days from no even?
No...same forever...unless hosting industry changes immensly (at which every hosting company would adjust prices). The ex-True Hosting resellers are still selling True Hostings $5 packages, and that deal was completed almost 10 months ago.

Sean R.
BurstNET™
System Administration

nt