Feb 20, 2018 Dan Rasure
From Facebook post.
I want to clear up a few items. I did the deal in San Francisco the way I did, because there was no deal to be made with TechShop or Autodesk. Autodesk let their UCC filing to secure their loan lapse in 2017, and when I asked Autodesk over and over if they had it they said they did. They finally admitted they didn't and refiled UCC'S. This didn't happen until January 5th. TechShop had also started receiving notices about their lease prior to the shop originally closing and continued to receive communication after the close. Between these two very significant failures on the parties,there was no deal to be made with either of them. I made the deal that had to be made to open the shop, I also never lied to either party about San Francisco. I did stop talking about the location after I made it clear to Autodesk the San Francisco assets were gone, TechShop never asked why it disappeared from the new proposals.
A deal can be made that gets the employees paid, but it is very clear Autodesk and TechShop do not want this to happen. Autodesk has repeatedly said they prefer bankruptcy. I have proposed deals that pay all of the employees prior to bankruptcy, allow the shops to open, and rent the equipment so a trustee can help decide fair value. The board doesn't want to take the risk of paying employees who they have an obligation to pay, and then file for bankruptcy. As well as the rental offers, cash proposals have also been made.
The obligation to pay employees was that of TechShop; they failed, and they need to get it paid. TechShop has not been honest with many parties for quite some time, so I'm not sure why anybody thinks they are now.