[smoyer]

Normally I'd agree with you but it sounds like this work-for-hire arrangement wasn't based on an hourly wage but rather payments for deliverables. If the software was as bad as described, no deliverables were met and the developer isn't owed a payment. Note that this assumes the contract specifies the specifications for what was deemed acceptable work.

[Bill_Dimm]

The problem I have with that argument is that the original post said there were multiple payments that were all reversed later. If the code was so bad, why wasn't the developer terminated much earlier? Doesn't multiple payments normally imply that multiple milestones were hit (i.e. deliverables accepted)?

[AJ007]

This could be an attempt to get a running proof of concept and then trying to minimize the cost of that proof of concept after the fact. It would be curious how much the investors knew about these events.