Company that revived Gas Gas tries to bring back Skully helmets

"Skully Nation," otherwise known as people who got burned or at least disappointed by the bankrupt smart-helmet company, got an e-mail announcing the creation of Skully Technologies, an unrelated group that bought the assets of the controversial startup.

The new Skully Technologies is based in Atlanta and is led by Ivan and Rafael Contreras, co-founders of the Spanish company Torrot, which also revived the Gas Gas brand recently. The e-mail, with Ivan Contreras' name on it, said in part:

"Although SKULLY Technologies has no formal obligation to the customers of the now defunct SKULLY, Inc., we recognize that hundreds of SKULLY helmet enthusiasts around the world have contributed to this product and were understandably disappointed that they never received one.

"We are determined to make this right."

What that will ultimately mean, nobody knows, and if the comments of those who forwarded me the e-mail are typical, most people aren't expecting much.

The original Skully raised nearly $2.4 million in a hugely successful Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign, made serial promises to produce and deliver helmets to those who had contributed, but finally declared bankruptcy, instead.

Meanwhile, back in California

That new development reminded me that I'd been meaning to check in on the status of the lawsuit filed by a former bookkeeper at Skully. Isabelle Faithhauer claimed wrongful dismissal, saying Skully co-founders Marcus and Mitchell Weller fired her for objecting to fraudulent accounting practices. She accused the Wellers of spending company money to buy two Dodge Vipers, for trips to strip clubs and otherwise treated corporate accounts "as their personal 'piggy banks'."

If the case actually goes to trial, it could reveal a lot about the inner workings of Skully — though perhaps nobody really cares that much any more. I probably shouldn't have been surprised to learn that the wheels of justice are grinding slowly. Weller's attorneys have complained the plaintiff has been slow to provide the documentation that supports the claims. A trial date has been pushed off to early 2018, at the earliest.

comments powered by Disqus