Although Andre said that he no longer had control of the site, information was stripped from it over a period of time rather than all at once so it wasn't just abandoned.

If I had to guess, I'd say that Andre's hoping that someone will want to buy the domain and the site - or if not Andre, then whoever now controls the site.

I wish I could be bothered setting up some kind of Google bomb so that Andre's actions regarding WBX come up every time someone does a search on Progressive Security.

He needs to define "most".  Otherwise "most" is entirely subjective and he can drag this out forever with no good reason.  It seems highly unlikely that anyone who hasn't already returned their overpayment will suddenly do so.  Whether "most" is 70%, 80% or 90%, Nefario needs to be clear about what the benchmark is and how long he intends to wait for it to be reached.  Right now, the way it looks from the outside is that he's setting it at an unrealistically high level so that he can use it as an excuse for halting refunds and continuing to with-hold information from asset issuers and their users.  It's up to Nefario to convince people that's not the case.

What is Nefario's plan if his totally arbitrary benchmark for "most" is never reached?  He needs to commit to a date after which the refund process will continue whether or not that benchmark has been reached even if it means that users receive less than the full amount owed to them.  He also needs to pass on user information to asset issuers right now there is literally no good reason for his continued failure to do that - he's intentionally created a situation where the value of that information is diminishing by the day.

Nefario is not acting in good faith.  Sooner or later his frustrated users will start acting in bad faith too and he'll have only himself to blame when that happens.

I expect that the liquidators will clarify the kind of supporting evidence they require when they make contact with creditors and/or post notice of the liquidation on the Bitcoinica website.  The first creditors' report - which by law must be completed within 25 business days of the court appointing the liquidator - will contain a notice which advises creditors of the deadline for lodging claims and a claim form as well as information on how to contact the liquidators.  

It is up to the liquidator whether they require you to submit supporting documents when you first make your claim or whether they just require a description of those documents when you make your claim and ask you to submit the documentation at a later time when it's more apparent whether a distribution is likely.  Make sure that you read the claim form carefully and understand whether or not you need to submit supporting documents with your claim.


That presumes Bitcoinica LP actually owns the IP and the Bitcoinica domain, which 1) may not be the case (I sure as shit wouldn't have set it up that way) and 2) assumes that there is no secured interest in those assets or that anyone holding a secured interest would have waived that interest had those assets not been devalued (which ends up being a he said/she said scenario).  

That the assets are now devalued is beyond doubt.  That they would have been available to satisfy the claims of all creditors is a matter of conjecture.  

On another note, unclescrooge is using the Bitcoinica source code for Bitfinex.  Either he's using it without permission of the IP owners or he's using it under licence.  Either way, some return to the liquidation estate for its use is in order.

That's unacceptably "vague".  What constitutes "most"?  What happens if James is unable to recover "most" of the overpayments?  James needs to commit to a timeline.  Anyone who is going to return their overpayment is likely to have done so already.  Refusing to move forward until some arbitrary amount of still outstanding overpayments is returned is just power-tripping.  People are running out of patience with James' bullshit excuses and are likely to look for retribution rather than restitution if this drags on much longer.

Interesting.  I wonder why the change in the choice of liquidator.

DeaDTerra, Burt W, Patrick Harnett and Goat also operated PPTs.  So did ineededausername, teek and usagi.

Cool service name but you're going to need to give people a lot more information if you want them to trust you and your service.

From reddit.


http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/12d3b6/glbse_needs_to_release_the_shareholder_database/


Operating for-profit services which target the greedy is hardly altruistic.

chrisrico

bitdragon

nefario indicated at the last meeting that he'd ignore any vote to remove him as CEO and I doubt that his attitude towards that has changed.  From what the shareholders have posted, they literally have no more information than users do about anything James is doing or planning.

While it might be technically possible to get an emergency order compelling nefario to give other shareholders access to the database and to release the user information to asset issuers, that's only really practical if an order is sought by someone in the UK.  You'd basically need a UK-based shareholder to consult a UK lawyer and find out whether it's even a viable course of action and especially whether it would complicate things even further (what's the likelihood, for instance, that a court would order that the whole process be overseen by an accountant?).

There should be shareholder meetings to monitor the repayment process being held at least weekly but it's pretty apparent that James considers the other shareholders irrelevant these days and has no intention of consulting them or keeping them informed of what it going on.  I doubt that you'd even be able to get all the shareholders to "attend" a shareholder meeting at this point, let alone get nefario to agree to abide by the decisions of that meeting.

Apart from the fact that he'd likely go broke accepting Bitcoin only, I wonder whether it would even be legal for him to refuse to accept cash.

Bitcoin 100 acts as a kind of interface allowing charities to accept BTC.  Maybe you can help get more charitable organisations linked in with them.

http://bitcoin100.org/

Disaster relief funds are an absolute nightmare to administer from both a legal and an accounting point of view.  Something which can operate at a local level is often more useful for getting help to people quickly.

bitcoins4sandy is serving as a conduit.  The funds collected will be forwarded to the Red Cross.  To set up the kind of disaster relief fund you're proposing would require compliance with the legal framework within which charitable organisations must operate. 

The shareholders have said several times in this thread that nefario isn't communicating with them.

One of the first things a liquidator does is take control of a business's records.  They'll also contact all listed creditors to inform them of the liquidation and to tell them how to submit a claim (in NZ, you usually have about a month in which to do that).  There's a standard claim form and it's very short.  
It's really important that you submit your claim in the time-frame required by the liquidator - it may not be considered if you don't - even though claims aren't typically formally processed until the liquidator is ready to make disbursements. The second liquidator's report is usually issued once all claims have been received and it's when you start getting a better idea of the liquidator's timeline for the liquidation process and what kind of returns might be possible, if any.  All sorts of things can prolong the liquidation process so the initial timeline given is really just a best case scenario guess.

It should be a little bit clearer after tomorrow's High Court hearing just when a liquidator is likely to be appointed. 

It's coming up to 4 weeks since GLBSE first went offline.  James needs to stop playing power games and sort this shit out.

The outstanding hot cheque warrant doesn't prove he has no money.  People fail to pay warrants all the time despite having the money to do so.

Have you actually run the numbers on what volume of transactions you'd need just to pay an employees to sit all day at a branch of say 4 major banks?  Let's assume minimum wage of $8 per hour.  That's $64 per day per employee, for a total of $256 per day in wages for those 4 employees. You'd need transactions of at least $25,600 per day to cover that alone even if that was your only expense.  But that's not going to be your only expense because you need to convert the BTC you acquire from your clients back to fiat, another cost which needs to be serviced before you start making a profit and you need to remember that exchanges process withdrawals on their timetable not yours.  Unless you want to be taking your service offline all the time, you're going to need to maintain significant cash reserves so that you can continue operating if there's any delay in selling your BTC or in your withdrawals from the exchanges hitting your bank account.

At the kind of volume you're talking about, you're going to have AML reports being filed left, right and centre by your bank because you're going to be receiving deposits of more than $10,000 all the time and making cash withdrawals of $10,000 all the time or you're going to be structuring to try to avoid that limit, which will get an AML report in its own right.

You'd need an account at each branch and a means for your employees to withdraw cash from that account so that they don't run out of money to make deposits.  Either that or you'd have to limit the amount of instant conversions each day to a set $ amount for each bank which would further limit the utility of your service given that it can already only operate during one time zone's banking hours.

Cash seems like an extremely cumbersome way to do this given that you can usually transfer funds instantly to anyone with an account at the same bank through online banking.

The banks are likely going to think that you're laundering money if you're frequently making cash deposits to different accounts even if those individual deposits are under the reporting threshold.  You'd also need to convert the Bitcoins you acquire to fiat money frequently in order to have cash available at all times, and if you were doing a significant amount of business then you'd be making a lot of cash withdrawals which would trigger mandatory reports by your bank. 

The OP's idea might not be illegal, but there are a whole lot of issues which might make it impractical including the amount of red tape involved.