Universal isn't on the hook for this. You can piss them off all you want, but all they might do is pull the license (if they have a clause allowing them to) and tell you to quit calling.
ARA also has no obligation to you.

You do have a claim against DP, but I guarantee they're judgement proof. So you can get whatever court order you want, there's no way they'll be able to pay you.

Because of this, there's no way any attorney will take the case. It's a huge hassle as they're on the other side of the globe and there is zero upside for winning.

This is a horrible situation for the pinball community and especially a group of people who were so enthusiastic they offered to front the money to create something awesome and further the community even more.

I would look into small claims court so you can do this as cheaply as possible. Then you get in line as a creditor and get your prorated share of what's left of DP (not much)... at least you'll get the satisfaction of a court ruling that way and maybe $50 for your trouble

That's kind of harsh... also not accurate. Though I should have been more specific, so I'll take the blame on this one.

When I said "look into small claims court", I mean in the Netherlands.

You're correct it would be difficult to gain standing in any state court. Maybe possible in federal court, but even if you could, it's not practical for loads of other reasons.

Filing a small claim in the Netherlands may be possible over the internet though. You would definitely have jurisdiction and as a bonus: you're usually reimbursed for court expenses if you win in Europe.

highdef is also correct in that I am NOT well versed in european law. I don't have any specific advice, but a simple google search turned up this as a good place to start: https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/sell-abroad/resolving-disputes/small-claims/index_en.htm

Everyone here seems to have strange views on morals of selling assets as fair market value.
Curious if anyone sees 1) a difference between the following examples and 2) if any are more or less moral:

A) Bill owns a grocery store and sells, among other things, peanut butter. The global price of peanut butter went up 20% recently, Bill's supplier increased Bill's price by 20% and Bill subsequently raised the price he charges for peanut butter by 20% to his customers.

B) After the price of peanut butter went up 20%, Bill found he had an extra pallet of peanut butter in the store room that he didn't know about. He continues to sell peanut butter at the new 20% higher price even though the product he is selling was purchased cheaper

C) Bill invests some extra money in the stock market, ForEx, and sometimes speculates on grocery prices. Suspecting prices of peanut butter would rise, he had purchased an extra pallet of peanut butter prior to the price increasing 20% and now that the price has gone up, he starts selling that peanut butter investment at the new 20% higher price.

Even here, if you're going to be angry with the supplier, that's fine... but getting mad at Bill for selling peanut butter he owns at fair market value? Bill's doing nothing wrong

Judging by the photo of 4 unpopulated playfields followed a week later by this photo of 4 playfields being married to cabinets, looks like they are building 4 games/week.
Still optimistic to assume that happens every single week for the rest of the year, but if it does, that's 188 more games