I believe Havelock also has a maintenance fee for issuers - based on market-cap of the security.  Not totally sure on that though.

I'll sling up non-binding motions to get a feel for whether there's a very strong preference for either of them.

Let me explain what the most likely scenario is - and what the answers are then to your question and some other common ones.

Burnside retained legal counsel to advise on what to do to ensure BTC-TC was legally fine (that's already known).
His lawyers advised that there was no way he should continue doing what he's doing and that he needed to stop doing it.  And that he needed to stop doing it without creating further liability for himself.

• At that point he CAN'T explain what his lawyers advised him - as to do so involves admitting that he was breaking the law.
• And he can't sell the exchange as a going concern to anyone else - because if his lawyers told him BTC-TC was illegal then they'd also have told him that he couldn't sell it (as a going concern) to anyone else.  It's a bit like if you'd been dealing drugs : your lawyer would very strongly advise you NOT to sell your stock to some other dealer.
• And once your lawyers have told you that you must not do something then you lose the ability to claim that you believe it to be OK.  As if your lawyers strongly advise you on a course of action and you choose not to follow it they are typically going to ask you sign a statement that they advised you NOT to do what you're doing - so their ass is covered.
• He MAY be able to sell the code-base - as that isn't illegal.  But obviously he's not going to even consider doing that until the exchanges are fully shut down.

It seems highly unlikely to me that he's been told to close down by the SEC or any LE.  Were that to have happened then closure would have been more of a case of pulling the plug out than the gradual winding down that has been announced.  This feels far more like being told to stop by his own lawyers than a cease-and-desist or seizure by some government agency - they don't give you a month to sort things out in, they want immediate cessation of activity.

Although I ran multiple securities on LTD-Global/BTC-TC I was provided with no more information than the rest of you (and that IS how it should be).  As recently as yesterday I was in contact with him about sorting out a problem with the locking state of a new security I was working on.  I had, of course, already realised there was a pretty decent likelihood of BTC-TC closing or removing access from US investors/issuers - that became evident as a possibility as soon as signups/creation of securities was disabled without any explanation (plus the rushed addition of withdrawal addresses for issuers).

IF DMS does relist, where would people prefer?

Cryptotrade is run by a scammer.
MPEx isn't a valid option as most investors won't have accounts there - and there'd be no point relisting somewhere that most people couldn't access their shares.

Which leaves Bitfunder and Havelock as the only two real options. 

I have no massive preference between them - I've used both without any problems.  Havelock looks prettier but I find it more a pain to navigate around than Bitfunder (takes too many clicks for the most common transitions) and it seems to grind to a halt under any sort of heavy load - which I've never seen on Bitfunder (which has always seemed to be able to handle load better than BTC-TC could).  Bitfunder has very sporadic customer service (people regularly waiting for support issues to be handled) and you have to move funds in and out through an entirely pointless exchange that only seems to exist to make moving funds in/out of Bitfunder unnecessarily complicated.

We'll see if either offers relocation.

I'm tending more towards relisting now but definitely haven't made a final call on it.

It's far better to give a slightly pessimistic valuation now - then see it get a bit better - than to give an optimistic valuation now and then have to keep reducing it.

Valuations of funds should ALWAYS be based on what you're pretty certain you can realise - which, right now, isn't much for some securities on BTC-TC/LTC-Global.

Typo there I think.  Or totally wrong thread.

Yeah it dropped below 0% in the last 24 hours.  We're down just over 5 BTC overall on J-D.

Just divested all our funds in J-D - the site took a major kicking last few days and our investment is down to 153.86146722 BTC.

Can't actually withdraw it as hot-wallet there is empty right now.

https://blockchain.info/address/1CzJY7pVkCqDjUtycHzFgeTTbbWokqYuXo

Is the address in which I'll hold funds belonging to DMS.  I've transferred the 90.71 BTC into there from one of my own personal addresses.

Will be withdrawing our J-D funds to there now.  If we find a new home I may, of course, reinvest in J-D.  And if we close down then the funds in that BTC address will be sent to BTC-TC and be part of the final distribution.

They work fine on both exchanges - it's 3 confirmations for BTC-TC and 6 for LTC-Global.

Underlying assets for the BBET and MPOE pass-throughs have been sold and a dividend scheduled for immediate payment to close both out.  It was such a tiny amount that there was no point in dragging it out.  I couldn't sell all BBET without dropping the price a lot so have last ones myself for now.

Will leave the topic open in case anyone has any questions or spots an error in my math - but as far as I'm concerned that's everything LTC-ATF related closed down and paid out in full.

A dividend of 0.69148904 LTC per share has been submitted for immediate processing in full and final settlement in respect of LTC-ATF's closure.  I returned my own shares to the fund first - so the total paid is under half the NAV that the fund had at closure.

That payment represents the adjusted NAV/U as of late yesterday evening when I locked the spreadsheet ready for this week's report.  I haven't attempted to mark things down because of the collapse in value of them today.  I'd been intending to do a much longer report than usual to celebrate the fund's 1 year anniversary.  We never quite reached it (the anniversary is still 3 days away).

It's been fun - and profitable - and who knows, maybe I'll start a new fund somewhere else in the future.

P.S.  Both bonds have also been repurchased in full at face value.  The pass-throughs aren't closed yet - but I'll personally take liability for those and will try to get them closed out as well before the exchange closes.

A dividend of 0.69148904 LTC per share has been submitted for immediate processing in full and final settlement in respect of LTC-ATF's closure.  I returned my own shares to the fund first - so the total paid is under half the NAV that the fund had at closure.

That payment represents the adjusted NAV/U as of late yesterday evening when I locked the spreadsheet ready for this week's report.  I haven't attempted to mark things down because of the collapse in value of them today.  I'd been intending to do a much longer report than usual to celebrate the fund's 1 year anniversary.  We never quite reached it (the anniversary is still 3 days away).

It's been fun - and profitable - and who knows, maybe I'll start a new fund somewhere else in the future.

There's a few pretty big differences between my fund and yours - which made closure of mine a no-brainer decision:

1.  It was denominated in LTC.  Nowhere else runs a credible LTC-denominated security exchange.
2.  The fund had a lot of capital raised via bonds (approximately half of gross assets managed).  It was not palatable to consider continuing to pay interest on bonds during a move - with uncertainty of what would exist anyway.
3.  LTC-ATF was pretty much entirely a trading fund rather than investment with most of its value as cash at all times.
4.  It had run for a year making very significant profits.  With me owning over half the fund, the fund itself had enough cash to clear all bonds and pay everyone out at last NAV/U (other than myself).  With the profit I'd personally made I was fine with taking the loss on what actual non-cash assets there were.  I've personally made 1k-2K BTC from my own investment in LTC-ATF - counting in reinvestment of profits that I cashed out - so was fine taking a 25-100 BTC loss now to get it all closed out quickly with the minimum of hassle for myself.

So there's pretty significant reasons why the course I've taken with LTC-ATF isn't necessarily the best one for you.

There is a third option you could consider - somewhere in between the two you listed.  That's to dividend out now whatever you have in cash and continue with the other assets.  That gives flexibility to investors with what portion of their investment IS immediately realisable without significant loss - but keeps your options open with what to do with the rest.  Of course that has the disadvantage for you that you have to continue doing the work - but that's unavoidable to some extent anyway.

I (it was LTC-ATF - but now it's me personally) hold some of your shares (was trying to trade the spread) so I do actually have some interest in what happens here.

160 BTC dividended out on BTC-TC in full and final settlement for LTC-ATF.B2.

I'd forgotten DMS had 90-odd BTC worth of LTC-ATF.B1.  By using the LTC that DMS received I can settle LTC-ATF shortly (just waiting on a transfer in to land from BTC-E then can make final payment on that).  Obviously DMS are getting full payment for their LTC-ATF.B1 in BTC - saving DMS the costs of exchanging 4-5k of LTC into BTC and me the hassle of shuffling funds in the opposite direction.

Looks like everyone should be settled up for those within the next 10-20 minutes - just DMS and the pass-throughs to sort out then.

I just did a final full repurchase at face value on LTC-ATF.B1.

DMS held 9071 of them so should, after conversion from LTC receive exactly 90.71 BTC.

For now that 90.71 is reserved in my own wallet - seems unwise right now to transfer it into BTC-TC until we know what we're doing.  It'll stay listed in daily reports as being LTC-ATF.B1 - but is actually cash BTC now (the LTC received are being used to buy out LTC-ATF - seemed pointless for DMS to exchange them into BTC, losing out on fees/spread, when I have plenty of liquid BTC myself and needed to get more LTC onto LTC-Global anyway).

LTC in just landed.

12827.09075000 LTC were paid out as full and final settlement on the LTC-ATF.B1 bonds.  Details of the exchange-rate used were posted on LTC-Global.

Bonds should be paid off within a few hours - transfers in are on their way for both bond issues.

LTC-ATF itself will probably NOT get fully paid out today - just realised I'll hit the 10K LTC per day limit on BTC-E.  I should be able to do a partial payment today then the remainder tomorrow - will have to convert more BTC into LTC to do it of course.  I'll take whatever losses come on the exchanging myself.

We had ~10.5K LTC on LTC-Global but needed just over 12.5K to pay off the bonds.  Have sent 5k over from BTC-E and will send rest of our balance tehre after converting the BTC there.  Will then work out what more we need and exchange some of my BTC into LTC to cover the rest - but that will take us slightly over the 10K/day limit so the second batch won't come in until tomorrow (I'm not going to risk messing around with multiple accounts and then getting them all locked).  Think I have 1K or so LTC in my personal account on LTC-Global as well, so we may not be too far short.

Wasn't your bot I was thinking of - it was the other one that would sometimes do 3-4 tiny buys of PURCHASE + swaps in a minute.

One change I'd make if I started this anew without bot transfers possible is that I'd make 1 PURCHASE = 1000 MINING+SELLING (or even 5000).  That would cut transfers right down as I'd only sell to people who were either taking a large position or actively market-making.  And they'd have more incentive to do it due to not being undercut by bots buying 1 purchase, splitting it then trying to sell the components seperately for a fraction of a cent profit.

If MINING + SELLING was X% less than the NAV/U of PURCHASE (which, remember, is 5% LESS than the selling price of PURCHASE) then it's rather simple to convert them to add up to NAV/U whilst being in the same ratio to one another.

I'm not sure which buyback clause in the contract you refer to:

If you refer to repurchasing PURCHASE and matching bundles of MINING+SELLING then yes - that will of course be possible once we've established what NAV/U is.  The only real issue I see with determining NAV/U will be the Ciphermine bonds.  Those won't be refunded by the issuer as the cash from them has been used to purchase mining hardware.  If the bonds relists elsewhere then there's no problem - otherwise, per the contract, we have to give notice of redemption and wait three months with zero interest before the cash arrives.  And until it does I can't in good conscience include it in the NAV/U.

The contract, on closure for exceptional reasons (which this is) says :

"Propose a split of funds between DMS.MINING and DMS.SELLING to be approved by a majority vote by both all outstanding DMS.MINING and all outstanding DMS.SELLING.

In the event of a vote with a proposal to split funds being left up for 7 days and (in either vote) the total of (Yes votes + No votes) being less than 50% of all outstanding shares then the Manager will determine a fair (in his best judgement) split of funds and execute final payments in accordance with that decision.  This clause is added specifically to address the scenario where most shares have been redeemed with a large part of those remaining outstanding being unable or unwilling to participate in reaching closure."

That's aside from the option of getting a new manager which clearly isn't an option here.  Moving to a different exchange wasn't covered in the contract - but if that proves easy to do then I'll certainly consider it, even if only to let existing shares run their natural course.

At present everything will continue as normal in terms of dividends etc - just there'll be no trading of PURCHASE and no redemptions.  Swaps of PURCHASE for MINING+SELLING will still be allowed.

There's no need to resolve it today - and no way I can anyway as I need to find out what's happening with the CIPHERMINE bonds, see what options are available and get as much feedback as possible.