ADV Production Modular Hardtop!

[userdude]

APG's response stated ADV was merely a distributor and nothing else. Just thinking out loud here but what manufacturer bills a company that is simply a distributor and nothing else for a product that is still just a drawing on a napkin?

The court docs state they were going 50/50 into this project so sounds like they were both partners in development with specified roles they would assume once the top was in production. Dismissing ADV brings up a big red flag with APG's statement and loses credibility on my end.

Not if APG produces a top and is able to fulfill orders. The contention on ADV's end is that they lost out on the IP and gave over all this money for nothing while using it for fraudulent purchases. APG's is that ADV shouldn't have taken pre-orders at the scale they did, as early as they did. If APG actually releases a top and starts deliveries/installs, it screws up ADV's argument that they harmed ADV's ability to deliver to their customers. Then it's just the lost IP, which is all down to the legally signed agreements.

If the rumors of a September release by APG materialized, that would put the onus back on ADV, which may be in a precarious position based on what's been going on for 2+ years.

Sponsored

 

[projectbadlands]

I will not demonize an amazing company over 1 product they have spent millions on creating and Perfecting.


If ADV wouldn’t have sent out a pre sale option then nobody here would have any problems. Seems to me ADV jumped the gun when they should have kept it in their pants until the product was actually ready. APG didn’t pre sell anyone any hard top at all did they?
where would this whole thing be if AVD didn’t open pre sales on a product “in development”

Another thought, They spent Whose millions to create and perfect this? If they did not use ADVs money, where are the $4M they received from ADV. If APG is innocent, those funds should still be sitting there. APG should refund that money back to unpaid customers.

APG was sending invoices to ADV for this top meaning some transactions were necessary to create the funding for the creation of the top. ADV had no option but to presale. APG never intended to sell directly so they would not have presold anything to begin with.

 

[userdude]

APG was sending invoices to ADV for this top meaning some transactions were necessary to create the funding for the creation of the top. ADV had no option but to presale. APG never intended to sell directly so they would not have presold anything to begin with.

Or they could have secured funding from investors in their business as business is meant to be done. They would have to have given up something, perhaps a stake in the business or a cut of sales for however many years, but saying they had to sell is inaccurate, especially at 100%, which is a huge red flag for something not in or very near production.

 

[Docindahouze]

Oh Litebrite did plenty wrong over the years & I won't watch their crap on any platform

 

[BoverW]

Another thought, They spent Whose millions to create and perfect this? If they did not use ADVs money, where are the $4M they received from ADV. If APG is innocent, those funds should still be sitting there. APG should refund that money back to unpaid customers.

Yeah, if APG is innocent as they claimed, they should not charge ADV until the top is ready (not proto).
Now it comes to some details we may never know. Is it for R&D or hardtops on some invoices?

 

[projectbadlands]

Or they could have secured funding from investors in their business as business is meant to be done. They would have to have given up something, perhaps a stake in the business or a cut of sales for however many years, but saying they had to sell is inaccurate, especially at 100%, which is a huge red flag for something not in or very near production.

Yea I would agree to this. ADV was not forced to presale to get those funds but I do see why ADV did it to fund the project and enter their half. Kind of like shark tank. ADV is at fault to taking people's money with nothing to show for it. Its a risk move that did not play out.

Not if APG produces a top and is able to fulfill orders. The contention on ADV's end is that they lost out on the IP and gave over all this money for nothing while using it for fraudulent purchases. APG's is that ADV shouldn't have taken pre-orders at the scale they did, as early as they did. If APG actually releases a top and starts deliveries/installs, it screws up ADV's argument that they harmed ADV's ability to deliver to their customers. Then it's just the lost IP, which is all down to the legally signed agreements.

If the rumors of a September release by APG materialized, that would put the onus back on ADV, which may be in a precarious position based on what's been going on for 2+ years.

Correct, one of ADV's claims is APG filed a patent without listing ADV as part owner and on this, I do believe APG is to blame. If they were partners 50/50, both parties should be names owners of that patent.

Based on this information, APG has $4M of customers money, they have a top coming out in Sept. Why not just ship those orders out to existing customers. APG's integrity and morals will be shown when/if that top is first sold to the public.

 

[Felix808]

And for the people who said we’ve done plenty wrong in the past… look in the mirror, I’m sure you aren’t perfect. NOBODY is perfect and nobody makes every decision correctly. We all make bad choices and live and learn.

Well that comment didn't land in the context I intended & there is no sense in trying to explain it. I did not mean it to imply they had legal wrong doing in the matter / past and for that misunderstanding I apologize.
But it should be no secret that I am not a fan.

 

[userdude]

Based on this information, APG has $4M of customers money, they have a top coming out in Sept. Why not just ship those orders out to existing customers. APG's integrity and morals will be shown when/if that top is first sold to the public.

I don't know what to say about the allegation they were 50/50 and that meant they were both patent holders for X. That's what a court will determine, I assume. That's why you have lawyers, and to wit, having competent investors would also presume ADV didn't step into a fiasco, since the investors have something at stake, too. Sometimes selling part of the business or proceeds is the wise thing to do.

However, APG would definitely go a long way to putting the onus for this debacle on ADV if they were to give tops to order holders that haven't been refunded. I would think a court would look on that very favorably, especially if some of ADV's claims don't bear out.

 

[userdude]

Well that comment didn't land in the context I intended & there is no sense in trying to explain it. I did not mean it to imply they had legal wrong doing in matter / past and for that misunderstanding I apologize.
But it should be no secret that I am not a fan.

I got it, you're not into bikini time in your viewing habits...

 

[chris@pandamotorworks]

If ADV wouldn’t have sent out a pre sale option then nobody here would have any problems. Seems to me ADV jumped the gun when they should have kept it in their pants until the product was actually ready. APG didn’t pre sell anyone any hard top at all did they?
where would this whole thing be if AVD didn’t open pre sales on a product “in development”

I have no dog in the fight but I must say that is pretty bold considering a few things we do know

From what someone read in the distributor contract:
"ADV was required by the terms of the contract to provide monthly sales reports to APG. So either ADV didn't actually provide those monthly sales reports or APG didn't bother looking at those reports."

And lastly the most important piece I feel:

These 2 things lead me to believe no one jumped the gun and APG was in on the pre order. Again speculation but at least backed by known pieces not a statement made on a belief the other company was doing something they didnt want them too.

I feel so bad for everyone involved and wish there was something we could do to help but like I stated before in my first post here the California Attorney General needs to be notified of this doing and everything on both sides needs to be taken with a grain of salt but the conversation should stick to things we can back up with what each side is posting and thats it.

 

[chris@pandamotorworks]

The accusation is the top you have wouldn't exist without the funding from ADV (allegedly). Hence, fruit from the poison tree. Thing is, it's an accusation at this point, and nobody here has any real idea how APG is funding what they're doing. Just what ADV has said and speculation about what APG did with those alleged funds.

as that does sting and hurt that really isn't their fault and should not be blamed. the Blame would be on APG for allowing them one on their build while not fulfilling all the orders that have been waiting years for marketing purposes etc etc .

 

[chris@pandamotorworks]

An Internet forum depending on size can be considered a widely published forum for accusation. I would say I would not put that theory to the test. Also, it is just bad form to do such when you do not have any proof of anything you are speaking on.

Alas I am not going to speculate on this further, as I said I will sit back and watch this show go on.

as the audience is there to hurt someone's business the smoking gun in case law for slander, libel etc is proving lost sales or stolen sales

 

[userdude]

as that does sting and hurt that really isn't their fault and should not be blamed. the Blame would be on APG for allowing them one on their build while not fulfilling all the orders that have been waiting years for marketing purposes etc etc .

Lite Brite says it's a prototype. At this point I have no reason to think otherwise, since AFAICT there are no production tops that have been delivered.

I agreed with your earlier statement and about reporting to the Cali AG but I don't agree that a statement on a forum and evidence from an adversarial lawsuit automatically means APG was derelict in the way they spent whatever funds they received from ADV.

 

[GMC]

Correct, one of ADV's claims is APG filed a patent without listing ADV as part owner and on this, I do believe APG is to blame. If they were partners 50/50, both parties should be names owners of that patent.

Based on this information, APG has $4M of customers money, they have a top coming out in Sept. Why not just ship those orders out to existing customers. APG's integrity and morals will be shown when/if that top is first sold to the public.

That's the way I see it. Absent a partnership, the only reason for a distributor to pay a manufacturer over $4 million, is to purchase product. I hope this sinks the guilty parties and those affected are made whole somehow.

 

[chris@pandamotorworks]

Lite Brite says it's a prototype. At this point I have no reason to think otherwise, since AFAICT there are no production tops that have been delivered.

I agreed with your earlier statement and about reporting to the Cali AG but I don't agree that a statement on a forum and evidence from an adversarial lawsuit automatically means APG was derelict in the way they spent whatever funds they received from ADV.

Oh I am on no ones side if I am not making that clear enough let me say it. I have no dog in this fight. I am just following along and trying to give a outside view from experience I do have.


I never said anyone was derelict with any ones money but I do think that both parties at this point share blame and know more than both are leading on to give to try and save as much face as one can. At the end of the day that is wrong and just hurts this community more.

Sponsored