<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Can Oversee Get Some Of The Money They Paid For Snapnames.com Back?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thedomains.com/2009/11/04/can-oversee-get-some-of-the-money-they-paid-for-snapnames-com-back/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/11/04/can-oversee-get-some-of-the-money-they-paid-for-snapnames-com-back/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:30:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The domain name industry gets its Bernie Madoff &#124; NEWS Gate</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/11/04/can-oversee-get-some-of-the-money-they-paid-for-snapnames-com-back/comment-page-1/#comment-25384</link>
		<dc:creator>The domain name industry gets its Bernie Madoff &#124; NEWS Gate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:29:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=6003#comment-25384</guid>
		<description>[...] inflated revenue and Oversee.net was taken advantage of in its acquisition, it seems that it might seek recourse. And one has to assume that criminal charges against the employee may become a [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] inflated revenue and Oversee.net was taken advantage of in its acquisition, it seems that it might seek recourse. And one has to assume that criminal charges against the employee may become a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Austin Tighe</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/11/04/can-oversee-get-some-of-the-money-they-paid-for-snapnames-com-back/comment-page-1/#comment-23291</link>
		<dc:creator>Austin Tighe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:34:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=6003#comment-23291</guid>
		<description>Our law firm is investigating a claim against SnapNames relating to allegations of bid rigging.  We would be very interested in learning more about your experience, and those of other SnapNames bidders whom you might know.  Anything you share would be confidential, unless you tell us otherwise.

 

    At some point, we may be interested in filing a class action lawsuit.  If we do, no one in the class would have to pay anything unless there was a recovery.  Even then, our fees would have to be approved by a court.  

 

    We would love to hear from you.  Thank you for taking the time to read this.

 

                                                        Austin Tighe

                                                        512.372.8100

                                                        austin@feazell-tighe.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Our law firm is investigating a claim against SnapNames relating to allegations of bid rigging.  We would be very interested in learning more about your experience, and those of other SnapNames bidders whom you might know.  Anything you share would be confidential, unless you tell us otherwise.</p>
<p>    At some point, we may be interested in filing a class action lawsuit.  If we do, no one in the class would have to pay anything unless there was a recovery.  Even then, our fees would have to be approved by a court.  </p>
<p>    We would love to hear from you.  Thank you for taking the time to read this.</p>
<p>                                                        Austin Tighe</p>
<p>                                                        512.372.8100</p>
<p>                                                        <a href="mailto:austin@feazell-tighe.com">austin@feazell-tighe.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chip Meade</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/11/04/can-oversee-get-some-of-the-money-they-paid-for-snapnames-com-back/comment-page-1/#comment-21783</link>
		<dc:creator>Chip Meade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:23:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=6003#comment-21783</guid>
		<description>There ws a case a few years ago involving Cendant where the previous CEO provided false info and fake revenue before he sold it.  Cendant spend about 8 years in court trying to get jail and money from the guy (Walter Forbes) Eventuall they did but took a while.  He got: 12 years, 3+Billion in fines.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16672186/

I am curious to see how big this really is.  Hundreds of Thousands? Millions? Tens of Millions?  If I added up all the amount that people are due based on their comments in the past 24 hours, it could be close to $100 million....but that is based on the hyperbole domainers are famous for. :) My guess is that it will be around $1.0-1.5 million. Still Huge!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There ws a case a few years ago involving Cendant where the previous CEO provided false info and fake revenue before he sold it.  Cendant spend about 8 years in court trying to get jail and money from the guy (Walter Forbes) Eventuall they did but took a while.  He got: 12 years, 3+Billion in fines.  <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16672186/" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16672186/</a></p>
<p>I am curious to see how big this really is.  Hundreds of Thousands? Millions? Tens of Millions?  If I added up all the amount that people are due based on their comments in the past 24 hours, it could be close to $100 million&#8230;.but that is based on the hyperbole domainers are famous for. <img src='http://www.thedomains.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  My guess is that it will be around $1.0-1.5 million. Still Huge!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cartoonz</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/11/04/can-oversee-get-some-of-the-money-they-paid-for-snapnames-com-back/comment-page-1/#comment-21755</link>
		<dc:creator>Cartoonz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:33:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=6003#comment-21755</guid>
		<description>Think about why this went on for so long....

Before Oversee bought SnapNames, this scam increased the income on the books for SnapNames substantially.  Added to that, NSI was on board with Snap for the lateral transfers too, making Snap look attractive at 25M.

Now Oversee buys it... NSI jumps ship... but the shill bids are still going strong, making sure the revenue is still pouring in.

Oversee finds out, we don&#039;t really know when... maybe sees this as an opportunity to get some of that 25M back due to fraud... they don&#039;t get satisfaction though.

The only action that makes any sense at this point is to blow the lid off it, go public, and try to wear the white hat.  That&#039;s why RUST was called in, they are the uber class Damage Control team, look &#039;em up.

I&#039;d think that whatever the cost in refunds and consultant fees are for this mess, Oversee is going to collect that and more for the obvious long standing nature of this fraud.

Every domain forum has been calling BS on &quot;halvarez&quot; for years... and Snap&#039;s response has always been a consistent &quot;No, he is a real and very good client that buys lots of names&quot;  Kjel has stated that many times.  Now we are told that halvarez would get refunds when he actually won names?  WTF?

While everyone is running around burning Nelson dolls in effigy, there is no doubt in my mind that he could not possibly have orchestrated this whole scam alone....

Think about it.
							Sorry... forgot to say great post - can&#039;t wait to read your next one!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Think about why this went on for so long&#8230;.</p>
<p>Before Oversee bought SnapNames, this scam increased the income on the books for SnapNames substantially.  Added to that, NSI was on board with Snap for the lateral transfers too, making Snap look attractive at 25M.</p>
<p>Now Oversee buys it&#8230; NSI jumps ship&#8230; but the shill bids are still going strong, making sure the revenue is still pouring in.</p>
<p>Oversee finds out, we don&#8217;t really know when&#8230; maybe sees this as an opportunity to get some of that 25M back due to fraud&#8230; they don&#8217;t get satisfaction though.</p>
<p>The only action that makes any sense at this point is to blow the lid off it, go public, and try to wear the white hat.  That&#8217;s why RUST was called in, they are the uber class Damage Control team, look &#8216;em up.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d think that whatever the cost in refunds and consultant fees are for this mess, Oversee is going to collect that and more for the obvious long standing nature of this fraud.</p>
<p>Every domain forum has been calling BS on &#8220;halvarez&#8221; for years&#8230; and Snap&#8217;s response has always been a consistent &#8220;No, he is a real and very good client that buys lots of names&#8221;  Kjel has stated that many times.  Now we are told that halvarez would get refunds when he actually won names?  WTF?</p>
<p>While everyone is running around burning Nelson dolls in effigy, there is no doubt in my mind that he could not possibly have orchestrated this whole scam alone&#8230;.</p>
<p>Think about it.<br />
							Sorry&#8230; forgot to say great post &#8211; can&#8217;t wait to read your next one!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cartoonz</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/11/04/can-oversee-get-some-of-the-money-they-paid-for-snapnames-com-back/comment-page-1/#comment-21754</link>
		<dc:creator>Cartoonz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:11:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=6003#comment-21754</guid>
		<description>Think about why this went on for so long....

Before Oversee bought SnapNames, this scam increased the income on the books for SnapNames substantially.  Added to that, NSI was on board with Snap for the lateral transfers too, making Snap look attractive at 25M.

Now Oversee buys it... NSI jumps ship... but the shill bids are still going strong, making sure the revenue is still pouring in.

Oversee finds out, we don&#039;t really know when... maybe sees this as an opportunity to get some of that 25M back due to fraud... they don&#039;t get satisfaction though.

The only action that makes any sense at this point is to blow the lid off it, go public, and try to wear the white hat.  That&#039;s why RUST was called in, they are the uber class Damage Control team, look &#039;em up.

I&#039;d think that whatever the cost in refunds and consultant fees are for this mess, Oversee is going to collect that and more for the obvious long standing nature of this fraud.

Every domain forum has been calling BS on &quot;halvarez&quot; for years... and Snap&#039;s response has always been a consistent &quot;No, he is a real and very good client that buys lots of names&quot;  Kjel has stated that many times.  Now we are told that halvarez would get refunds when he actually won names?  WTF?

While everyone is running around burning Nelson dolls in effigy, there is no doubt in my mind that he could not possibly have orchestrated this whole scam alone....

Think about it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Think about why this went on for so long&#8230;.</p>
<p>Before Oversee bought SnapNames, this scam increased the income on the books for SnapNames substantially.  Added to that, NSI was on board with Snap for the lateral transfers too, making Snap look attractive at 25M.</p>
<p>Now Oversee buys it&#8230; NSI jumps ship&#8230; but the shill bids are still going strong, making sure the revenue is still pouring in.</p>
<p>Oversee finds out, we don&#8217;t really know when&#8230; maybe sees this as an opportunity to get some of that 25M back due to fraud&#8230; they don&#8217;t get satisfaction though.</p>
<p>The only action that makes any sense at this point is to blow the lid off it, go public, and try to wear the white hat.  That&#8217;s why RUST was called in, they are the uber class Damage Control team, look &#8216;em up.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d think that whatever the cost in refunds and consultant fees are for this mess, Oversee is going to collect that and more for the obvious long standing nature of this fraud.</p>
<p>Every domain forum has been calling BS on &#8220;halvarez&#8221; for years&#8230; and Snap&#8217;s response has always been a consistent &#8220;No, he is a real and very good client that buys lots of names&#8221;  Kjel has stated that many times.  Now we are told that halvarez would get refunds when he actually won names?  WTF?</p>
<p>While everyone is running around burning Nelson dolls in effigy, there is no doubt in my mind that he could not possibly have orchestrated this whole scam alone&#8230;.</p>
<p>Think about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rogue Snapnames Employee Bids on Domain Name Auctions, Drives Up Prices</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/11/04/can-oversee-get-some-of-the-money-they-paid-for-snapnames-com-back/comment-page-1/#comment-21732</link>
		<dc:creator>Rogue Snapnames Employee Bids on Domain Name Auctions, Drives Up Prices</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:37:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=6003#comment-21732</guid>
		<description>[...] TheDomains asks about getting money back. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] TheDomains asks about getting money back. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Davis Freeberg</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/11/04/can-oversee-get-some-of-the-money-they-paid-for-snapnames-com-back/comment-page-1/#comment-21708</link>
		<dc:creator>Davis Freeberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:14:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=6003#comment-21708</guid>
		<description>This would absolutely be grounds for a lawsuit and IMHO I don&#039;t see how they can not sue.  By coming clean before this was leaked by someone they are clearly trying to send the message that this is a rogue employee and not a core part of the business.  Even if the settlement resulted in the employee in question losing his profit/original equity from the transaction, it would be enough of a moral victory to say we take this matter seriously.  Sending an email to all of your customers about a scandal takes guts, but playing victim will help to offset some of the mistrust and criticism that will come from this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This would absolutely be grounds for a lawsuit and IMHO I don&#8217;t see how they can not sue.  By coming clean before this was leaked by someone they are clearly trying to send the message that this is a rogue employee and not a core part of the business.  Even if the settlement resulted in the employee in question losing his profit/original equity from the transaction, it would be enough of a moral victory to say we take this matter seriously.  Sending an email to all of your customers about a scandal takes guts, but playing victim will help to offset some of the mistrust and criticism that will come from this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/11/04/can-oversee-get-some-of-the-money-they-paid-for-snapnames-com-back/comment-page-1/#comment-21707</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:10:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=6003#comment-21707</guid>
		<description>They are covering their tracks. I cannot see any bid history prior to 2007 in my account. It was there a few days ago.

This coverup is really bad. They are handling it really poorly. Shame on Oversee.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They are covering their tracks. I cannot see any bid history prior to 2007 in my account. It was there a few days ago.</p>
<p>This coverup is really bad. They are handling it really poorly. Shame on Oversee.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Berke</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/11/04/can-oversee-get-some-of-the-money-they-paid-for-snapnames-com-back/comment-page-1/#comment-21705</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Berke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:32:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=6003#comment-21705</guid>
		<description>Good post MHB,

This reminds me of your post http://www.thedomains.com/2008/06/29/godaddy-insider-bidding-makes-non-domain-blog-headlines/

While its not the same, certainly in a similar arena.  I was surprised to just find InsiderBidding.com open after reading your post and just grabbed it. Worth a reg fee flyer IMO as  &quot;Insider Bidding&quot; can be the new &quot;Insider Trading&quot; of a new financial ecosystem across many industries.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post MHB,</p>
<p>This reminds me of your post <a href="http://www.thedomains.com/2008/06/29/godaddy-insider-bidding-makes-non-domain-blog-headlines/" rel="nofollow">http://www.thedomains.com/2008/06/29/godaddy-insider-bidding-makes-non-domain-blog-headlines/</a></p>
<p>While its not the same, certainly in a similar arena.  I was surprised to just find InsiderBidding.com open after reading your post and just grabbed it. Worth a reg fee flyer IMO as  &#8220;Insider Bidding&#8221; can be the new &#8220;Insider Trading&#8221; of a new financial ecosystem across many industries.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: howard Neu</title>
		<link>http://www.thedomains.com/2009/11/04/can-oversee-get-some-of-the-money-they-paid-for-snapnames-com-back/comment-page-1/#comment-21703</link>
		<dc:creator>howard Neu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:25:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thedomains.com/?p=6003#comment-21703</guid>
		<description>Due diligence generally does not include covered-up fraud.  I don&#039;t think that Snapnames could use that as a defense to any litigation that might be brought by OVERSEE</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Due diligence generally does not include covered-up fraud.  I don&#8217;t think that Snapnames could use that as a defense to any litigation that might be brought by OVERSEE</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
