|
The $63.6 million is liquid liabilities (basically, the amount of CASH debts they owe), you shrill moron.
|
|
|
|
I want to know where every single one of those missing 750k Bitcoin have gone to. MtGox should publish full details of all their compromised cold storage wallet addresses so we can see what happened. Right now for all I know Mark simply decided to keep all the coins for himself - he needs to prove he didn't do this.  Not a chance in hell of MtGox releasing any further financial information without explicit approval at the moment, especially not with government investigations in progress. |
|
|
|
My understanding was that bankruptcy protection was similar to chapter 11 protection in the US, which allows for continued trading and restructuring. Is that not the case?
If it is the case, that is very different from just the connotations of "bankruptcy" which would be an admission that it is all over now.
(though I guess even if it is like chapter 11 it could well still all be over as they may never come up with a suitable plan)
Is it different in Japan?
"Bankruptcy" in Japan implies liquidation. There are other forms of insolvency which imply an attempt at restructuring (the magic word is "rehabilitation"). It's not clear exactly what's going on. Some people claim that the words "civil rehabilitation" were mentioned in the press conference but it's difficult to imagine how it would even be possible/approved with such a huge shortfall of funds (a total of 870,000 BTC plus $63.6 million in cash that we know of so far). Hopefully the financial media will clarify things over the next couple of days. Perhaps for some strange reason the "stolen" BTC aren't being regarded as a debt in the insolvency. |
|
|
|
It's possible that of the 744k BTC lost, MtGox has enough coins in cold storage to cover all but the $64 million he's filing for.
That being said I still hope his ass winds up in jail over criminal negligence or something. Losing tens of millions of dollars of other people's money because you don't know how to read a fucking ledger should be a crime.
No, the $63.6 million is liquid liabilities - so it's basically the cash liabilities. |
|
|
|
As claimed in the Crisis plan, they have:
Assets: 32,430,000 USD + 2,000 BTC
Liabilities: 55,000,000 USD + 744,408 BTC
Now they say they have assets of 3.84B JPY = 37.71M USD and liabilities of 6.5B JPY = 63.84M USD
So solving the equations:
32430000 + 2000 A = 37710000
A = 2640 (USD/BTC)
55000000 + 744408 B = 63840000
B = 11.87 (USD/BTC)
So there must be something wrong with the crisis plan figures
I am far from convinced that crisis plan was anything other than a made up crock of shit. I mean it was claimed to be an internal document but stated in it that "to stop Gox going under (although god knows they deserve to)" and on one page the mountain logo of Gox had a goat sat on top of it. Not convinced by it at all. But the lawyer really claims that they have lost 750000 customer's coins. Even at $100 each that would be $74M. But now they say their outstanding debt is only $63.84M, including fiat. Just don't add up. Maybe the outstanding debt has already deducted the assets? That would make the total liability as $101,550,000 and $135.4/BTC, exactly the closing price. (However, this assume they have no fiat liability.....) The figure of $63 million seems to refer only to their liquid liabilities. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101455170 |
|
|
|
The company's lawyers added that Mt.Gox may have lost nearly of its virtual currency, leading to a black hole of 2.8 billion Japanese yen, local media reported.
The company said there were 127,000 creditors in the bankruptcy and only 0.8 percent were Japanese. Representatives added that it opted for a transparent procedure due to public outcry and will aid authorities in finding out what happened. It's liquid liabilities totaled 6.501 billion Japanese yen with its total assets being 3.842 billion Japanese yen, according to Reuters. Dow Jones added that Mt.Gox believed 750,000 of customers' coins may have been lost and 100,000 of its own, meaning a loss of around $500 million at current market prices. www.cnbc.com/id/101455170 |
|
|
|
I just think everyone should wait until the actual filings become public before making any optimistic assumptions about this announcement. The financial media will no doubt go through the filings with a fine tooth comb and will certainly report on whether or not restructuring was even mentioned as a possibility in the filings. Agree, just trying to point out that there is a lot of misinformation flying around about what has happened. Just trying to give a little balance. There's a thread on reddit in which someone claims that the translation of the news conference reveals that they've filed for civil rehabilitation. Unfortunately, that same translation says they lost 85 million BTC (4 times all the BTC which will ever exist) so I don't regard it as reliable. This pastebin of an IRC chat with Mark earlier today also suggests that he still believes there may be a "way out". pastebin.com/YGr2WTvD The ~ $63 million seems to be liquid liabilities (and so presumably doesn't include BTC). http://www.cnbc.com/id/101455170 |
|
|
|
You are right, it was a massive simplification on my part.
I would be amazed if the asset and debt didn't include BTC. The court would throw it out in a second.
Although it's logical to assume that, we honestly won't know until the filings are made public exactly what's going on, what's included and what's not, and exactly what MtGox has sought. I want to see those filings just as much as everyone else, although I suspect that no matter what they indicate people are still going to be unhappy with the information and believe that the process "should" be handled differently. It's a novel case, so even the lawyers who filed on behalf of MtGox are still only guessing about how BTC liabilities will be addressed during the process. |
|
|
|
I just think everyone should wait until the actual filings become public before making any optimistic assumptions about this announcement. The financial media will no doubt go through the filings with a fine tooth comb and will certainly report on whether or not restructuring was even mentioned as a possibility in the filings. |
|
|
|
*DJ Mt. Gox Lawyer: Mt. Gox Assets Y3.84B
*DJ Mt. Gox Lawyer: Will Cooperate With Japanese Authorities Into Investigating What Happened
If true they have more than half of their liabilities at book. Worst case scenario would be creditors getting 50% back. We'll see the veracity of claims in the near future. That's not the worst case scenario at all. We don't know if the filing even includes BTC. We do know that fees involved in sorting out business bankruptcies tend to chew through enormous amounts of remaining assets and that unsecured creditors typically receive little or no return. Without access to the information contained in the filings, all we know for sure is that legal actions in Japan will now be stayed (and legal actions initiated outside Japan will likely be rendered futile). |
|
|
|
The Japanese legal system is not the US legal system. Had rehabilitation (restructuring or trading out) been the objective of the filing, it's unlikely that the lawyer would have used the term bankruptcy at all (bankruptcy implies liquidation in Japan). http://www.bingham.com/Publications/Files/2012/02/A-Practical-Guide-to-Japanese-Insolvency-ProceduresThe immediate staying of legal actions by creditors tends to be the most immediate effect of insolvencies in general. It doesn't imply that there's any hope of a company being restructured. Until someone gets hold of the filings and translates them, assumptions about the possibility of MtGox seeking to/being able to restructure are pure speculation. |
|
|
|
Your talking to someone who has studied just about every major bankruptcy filing in the last 20 years he still has the coin ? check your official Mtgox addresses so he dosn't want to give it back so he is Bankrupt  You haven't studied them very well it seems or you know that you don't need to have no assets in order to be insolvent. MtGox has not previously stated that they didn't have any Bitcoin. That's something which the community latched onto based on various pieces of information provided by others. They have a USD deficit of over $20 million. It's perfectly possible for them to have a lot of Bitcoin and still be short another $40 million even when the BTC in known MtGox accounts are taken into account. |
|
|
|
*DJ Mt. Gox Lawyer: Outstanding Debt Y6.5B
*DJ Mt. Gox Lawyer: Filed For Bankruptcy Protection
*DJ Mt. Gox Lawyer: Accepted By Tokyo District Court
So around $ 60 mln outstanding debt
Only $60mln? The BS out of gox continues. I have no doubt the actual filings will be made public by the media soon. If they've lost access to their cold wallets - as some have theorised - that could explain why the nominal debt is only $60 million. The cold wallets would still technically count as an asset. |
|
|
|
|
WSJ is also reporting that a press conference is imminent.
online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303801304579410010379087576?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303801304579410010379087576.html
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to join that? For non us residents too? thanks. The action specifically defines the class as US customers. The contact details for the law firm handling it are listed at the end of the document so US customers could contact them if they wanted to join the action. |
|
|
|
In Australia the best bet is to promise to only accept cash deposits.
That way there is zero risk of people claiming the transfers were stolen etc.
Might help.
You can still run into issues. A high volume of cash deposits can in itself cause you to be deemed "high risk" under a bank's risk management policies (which they are required by law to have and implement). "High risk" accounts aren't generally worth the administrative burden and compliance costs they incur for the bank. A single fine in relation to activity on your account could cost them millions. You need to understand that banks don't give a shit about what people do with their money. They care about whether having you as a customer is going to expose them to liability and whether they're going to make a profit from having you as a customer (you're less desirable as a customer if servicing your account costs them more than servicing the account of another customer with a similar pattern and value of transactions). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
