[Source Check] GADECO 2014 — did the contingent finder fee ever mature?

[danespec]

Primary GAH source and public record trail

Barak Gadeco Fee 2014

What the published records support

GAH documents a November 3 withdrawal followed by a November 18 contingent 3% finder-fee proposal and further buyer discussions. The record does not establish a completed sale or paid commission.

Exact question for the community

Is there a lawfully public signed definitive agreement, closing statement, later invoice or payment record that confirms or rules out a completed fee event?

What would count as a useful public receipt?

Dated executed contract or public payment receipt with a case source identifier, not an unsigned proposal alone.

What this does not prove

A term sheet, contingent fee or buyer meeting is not evidence of actual payment or improper conduct.

---

Source-first participation checklist

• Link the original public, lawfully released source, include date, page, EFTA/ECF/Bates identifier and surrounding context.
• Separate observable facts from competing hypotheses and identify redactions or gaps.
• No survivor or anonymous-litigant identification, private bank/contact details, protected SAR texts, threats, hacked content or unsupported declarations of guilt.
• Posts are public as soon as submitted; moderators can remove or lock content but cannot promise confidential reporting, anonymity, or continuous review. A GitHub account is required.
• For an ordinary source lead you do not want as a public discussion, use GAH Contact / Source Tips. That email is also not a confidential or encrypted service.
• GAH Community Rules · Explore all investigations.