EXHIBIT N Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document171-1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 1of8 Michael Foster : From: Stuart Stephen as] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:19 AM To: Michael Foster Cc: Wong, Helen; tkosmidis@ftc.gov; Ifrazier@ftc.gov, gashe@ftc.gov; eljreceiver@spencerfane.com; Jim Humphrey; Miriam E. Bailey; braden Subject: Re: Butterfly Labs - 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Michael, Thank you for getting back to me. It is nice to know that there are in fact people behind the email addresses in the court documentation. | added the Polsinelli addresses as | was growing increasingly frustrated with the wall of silence from the FTC and temporary receiver. | have not been approached by anyone or any company legally involved in the court case and it was my own free will and idea to expand the address list in order to try to gain a response. With the court case looming on the 24th, | decided it was time to also include the defendants lawyers as it seems other routes are hopeless. As customers are being ignored by the FTC who claim to represent them, it seems illogical that this process is being undertaken to protect consumers. They do not appear to give ‘two hoots about consumers. | am happy for the email chain to be submitted as evidence. If possible, please could the email address be hidden from any published material as | do not wish to receive any unwarranted messages, it is my personal email address. Thank you, Stuart On 19 November 2014 16:58, Michael Foster wrote: Stuart, Thank you for copying us on this correspondence. We want you to know that we intend to seek leave to submit your email and the related chain to the Judge presiding over this lawsuit, The Honorable Brian C. Wimes. | can assure you that BF Labs is doing everything it can to help consumers and BF Labs’ customers like yourself. | may follow up with you asking for a declaration that no one from BF Labs, nor its attorneys contacted you or asked you to copy us on this email. Hopefully, when the Judge reviews this email chain and then reviews any additional evidence that the FTC submits today, he will see that the FTC is not seeking declarations from consumers like yourself who have reached out to the FTC complaining that the FTC’s actions are hurting consumers. Your email shows why BF Labs should be allowed to get back to business getting products to the consumers who want them. Regards, Michael Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document171-1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 2 of 8 il From: Stuart Stephen [mailto Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:29 AM To: Wong, Helen; tkosmidis@ftc.gov; lfrazier@ftc.gov; gashe@ftc.gov Cc: eljreceiver@spencerfane.com; Jim Humphrey; Miriam E. Bailey; Michael Foster; braden Subject: Re: Butterfly Labs - 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Dear all, | still have not received any reply to my query from 7th November. This is not acceptable. Please will someone have at least the courtesy to answer my query. | have cc'd representatives of Polsinelli as an indication of how the FTC is ignoring customers of BFL, when they should be representing them. Customers of BFL through receivership are customers of the FTC - why is the FTC ignoring them? Who is the FTC representing here? Thank you, Stuart Stephen On 13 November 2014 09:20, Stuart Stephen IS wrote: Dear all, Please could someone kindly respond to my query from the 7th November. Thank you. Stuart Stephen On 7 November 2014 09:31, Stuart Stephen ae 0: Dear Receiver {tale PRBS BeW OAK P1-1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 3 of 8 2 As a customer, whom the FTC is providing protection, | would like to understand if there is a process where | can voice my concern over the proceedings. The court action is costing the company large amounts of money and since BFL were shipping products and issuing refunds, the timing of the FTC action has been ill-thought and untimely. As proceedings have moved on, we have seen in the various court documentation that the costs for the intervention are largely being taken from the BFL bank accounts and not from FTC/government funds. This is reducing the customers likelihood of getting anything back at the end of this process and is highly frustrating when the chance of receiving a product from BFL was very high - there is plenty of evidence to show that products were being shipped. The difference between getting ‘cents on the dollar’ instead of receiving a working product would be an injustice and unfair, it is disproportionate. It is my opinion that the FTC is punishing customers and not protecting them. The only winners from this process is the lawyers and those providing services to the FTC. The customer is only picking up the scraps after FTC service providers take their slice of the cake. That is, if anything is left! Interestingly, | saw in the court documentation that the BFL defendants were denied money to pay legal expenses for court proceedings. | found this extremely hypocritical as the FTC appears to be happy to take funds from BFL for it's own expenses - again this seems disproportionate. As a customer affected, is there a process where | can officially lodge a complaint or make a statement? Seeing as it is customers who the FTC are claiming to protect, it would seem logical that the customer should be able to voice their concerns. Yours faithfully, Stuart Stephen On 25 September 2014 12:59, Wong, Helen wrote: Hi Stuart, Thank you forpreviding shis infgapatiqnc\\r wile you Know jf we peed tg folow, up: Page 4 of 8 3 Best, Helen From: Stuart Stephen [mailto Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 05:19 AM To: eljreceiver@spencerfane.com ; Wong, Helen Cc: Stuart Stephen is Subject: Re: Butterfly Labs - 4:24-cv-00815-BCW Dear Receiver/Helen Wong, Further to my previous email, | would like to offer more information. | ordered on 30th December 2013, with a view of receiving hardware in the region of Jan/Feb, although | expected it to arrive in Mar/Apr. As you can see from the internet archive ‘wayback machine’ [1], this was a reasonable view to take. The advertised ‘bulk shipping window at the time was advertised as Jan/Feb. It is now nearing the end of September 2014 and | have still not received my hardware. | have also attached my invoice and proof of payment. | would also be willing to share any further information on request. | look forward to a prompt response to my query. Yours faithfully, Stuart Stephen [1] https: //web.archive.org/web/20131231191848/http: //www.butterfl labs.com/monarch On 24 September 2014 19:11, Stuart Stephen I wrote: Dear Receiveggbelqna Wanms15-BCW Document171-1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 5 of 8 4 | am a customer of Butterfly Labs, but reside in the UK. | would like to understand what is happening to Butterfly Labs and how this will affect my order of a Monarch 600GH/s bitcoin mining device. | am not familiar with United States law or practices, so the information must be detailed and clear. The timing of this intervention seems untimely based on evidence that customers have been receiving products. | feel that | was potentially a matter of weeks away from having a product delivered. | am obviously concerned that: a) My order will never arrive now. b) | will never get [all] my money back. c) The order will arrive, but because of the delay, be rendered useless. Bitcoin mining hardware delivery is time-sensitive, the longer it takes, the less useful it is. d) As a foreign purchaser, am | equally as protected as someone from the United States? | see there is a court case scheduled for 29th September to decide on how things will proceed. Is there somewhere that | can keep informed about this, possibly even listen/watch? For you information, my order is as follows: - ORDER # DATE SHIP TO ORDER TOTAL STATUS BFL-126078078 12/30/13 Stuart Stephen $2,188.00 Processing Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document171-1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 6 of 8 re) | look forward to a prompt response to my query. Yours faithfully, Stuart Stephen Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document171-1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 7 of 8 6 This electronic mail message contains CONFIDENTIAL information which is (a) ATTORNEY - CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION, WORK PRODUCT, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee (s) named herein. If you are not an Addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to an Addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please reply to the sender and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system. Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document171-1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 8 of 8 7