Reply to comment

I think the issue at hand is so simple, that most readers here are missing the point. The point being, PIC provided a service to Merge, where both the cost and service to be rendered were agreed upon by both parties. PIC carried out this service per their contract, no more, no less. Merge is deciding not to uphold their end of the contract. According to contract law (at least U.S. contract law), the only valid reason that Merge would have for not paying PIC is they can prove that PIC acted in bad faith or failed to live up to their end of the contract, but from everything I've read, PIC did everything they were contracted to do. I've followed this story from the first time it broke, am I missing something bit of information? If this goes to a civil court, unless Merge can prove that PIC colluded with "The Whale" to cause financial harm to Merge, they will be forced to pay the amount owed to PIC. According to what I've read, it seems that the Whale charged back both Merge and PIC, so both parties have been financially hurt, but Merge is trying to shift the entire financial burden onto PIC.