[duckpunch]

You're confusing Hashrocket, the web development company, with United Directories, the company being charged. The people being charged are essentially initial investors. Pointing a finger at Hashrocket in this scenario is not unlike blaming every startup that was invested in by an angel or VC that later ended up involved in fraudulent activity. None of this means that Hashrocket is not at all at fault, but based on the news that we all have, you're drawing unreasonable conclusions. If however you have other sources, please share them here, otherwise you're just trolling.

[xenopia]

The two executives charged seem to be a bit more than passive investors, considering they are right on Hashrocket's site. One is the CFO. That's not good.

[ww520]

Aren't those people charged executives of Hashrocket as well?

[duckpunch]

On second look I have to concede that I could be under-rating their authority. To be fair major investors will often sit on boards, but there's no need for me to make further conjecture.

A fellow who comments here http://avramc.posterous.com/united-directories-federal-court... makes a similar claim from a much more advantaged position of knowledge.