Vlad "plots" aginst best freind scammer Matthew N. Wright

[MoPac]

No there will be no legal consequences. Bets from private persons to private persons are not accountable. There is no single case where any curt has seized someone's property due to a bet.

On a betting office you make a contract or buy a batch. That's a different thing.

That may be true, although one interesting way of looking at this is that Matthew was actually peddling an insurance product rather than a gambling wager as classically understood. I don't have all the transcripts of what exactly Matt himself said, but there was certainly a lot of discussion about this being a way to hedge a Pirate default.  Financial insurance products such as credit default swaps and even classic insurance are all "bets" in a way between those exposed to risk and those offering an offset.

So it may be that for many Matthew bets, there was no skin in the game, and it was just a wager on the sideline about whether Pirate will pay, just like whether Liverpool will win.  But for those holding Pirate debt and looking for a hedge, this contract worked more like insurance and, depending on what Matthew said about it, might be more solid in terms of a liability in legal proceedings.  Maybe.

[1715045118]

1715045118

[1715045118]

1715045118

[1715045118]

1715045118

[DeathAndTaxes]

Bold on the Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย quote my emphasis. It is Bittalk Media Ltd, who is liable here. What we are talking about here is a corporation turning over some of its shares held in trust for one of its shareholders in exchange for some very questionable liabilities of the shareholder, without a right of offset, with multiple international jurisdictions involved and where the shareholder in question is at risk of bankruptcy! Talk about a legal hornets' nest. The legal fees to clean up this mess alone can easily bankrupt many a business start up.

I missed that but I still don't see how BitTalk is liable for anything.  If Matt choses to trade some of his liabilities for the equity in BitTalk that is his choice.  If he is insolvent (legal definition) and seeks bankruptcy then the tx could be voided but there is legal consequence.  BitTalk could take a loss (in theory) but the odds of all that happening are essentially nil.

[ArticMine]

Bold on the Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย quote my emphasis. It is Bittalk Media Ltd, who is liable here. What we are talking about here is a corporation turning over some of its shares held in trust for one of its shareholders in exchange for some very questionable liabilities of the shareholder, without a right of offset, with multiple international jurisdictions involved and where the shareholder in question is at risk of bankruptcy! Talk about a legal hornets' nest. The legal fees to clean up this mess alone can easily bankrupt many a business start up.

I missed that but I still don't see how BitTalk is liable for anything.  If Matt choses to trade some of his liabilities for the equity in BitTalk that is his choice.  If he is insolvent (legal definition) and seeks bankruptcy then the tx could be voided but there is legal consequence.  BitTalk could take a loss (in theory) but the odds of all that happening are essentially nil.

As long a Matt does this of his own free will and without duress, yes of course. Now what exactly is the "leverage" that Bittalk Media Ltd. has here?

[Akka]

No there will be no legal consequences. Bets from private persons to private persons are not accountable. There is no single case where any curt has seized someone's property due to a bet.

On a betting office you make a contract or buy a batch. That's a different thing.

I actually tend to agree that any liabilities arising from this bet are very likely worthless. It is what is been proposed in exchange for these "liabilities" that can lead to very serious and complex legal problems.

I tend to disagree again. This is solely a PR deal to minimize damage to the companies reputation.

Companies do this all the time to people wronged by one of their staff members.

But I'm not completely sure this time. Might be a problem, but I don't think so.

[ArticMine]

No there will be no legal consequences. Bets from private persons to private persons are not accountable. There is no single case where any curt has seized someone's property due to a bet.

On a betting office you make a contract or buy a batch. That's a different thing.

I actually tend to agree that any liabilities arising from this bet are very likely worthless. It is what is been proposed in exchange for these "liabilities" that can lead to very serious and complex legal problems.

I tend to disagree again. This is solely a PR deal to minimize damage to the companies reputation.

Companies do this all the time to people wronged by one of their staff members.

But I'm not completely sure this time. Might be a problem, but I don't think so.

As long as Bittalk Media Ltd. does not in any way allow this to influence their relationship with Matt with respect to Matt's stock yes. Otherwise there can be serious problems.

[SgtSpike]

Bold on the Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย quote my emphasis. It is Bittalk Media Ltd, who is liable here. What we are talking about here is a corporation turning over some of its shares held in trust for one of its shareholders in exchange for some very questionable liabilities of the shareholder, without a right of offset, with multiple international jurisdictions involved and where the shareholder in question is at risk of bankruptcy! Talk about a legal hornets' nest. The legal fees to clean up this mess alone can easily bankrupt many a business start up.

I missed that but I still don't see how BitTalk is liable for anything.  If Matt choses to trade some of his liabilities for the equity in BitTalk that is his choice.  If he is insolvent (legal definition) and seeks bankruptcy then the tx could be voided but there is legal consequence.  BitTalk could take a loss (in theory) but the odds of all that happening are essentially nil.

Ok, so here's a question:

In the event of a MNW bankruptcy, and assuming he still held partial equity in Bitcoin Magazine, what would happen to that equity?  Would it be sold by the state at auction?  Would it be offered for buyout to the other shareholders at the highest bid price?  Would it be distributed to the creditors?

Also, are individuals treated the same as corporations when it comes to bankruptcy?  If a person is known to be bankrupt soon, then they shouldn't pay anyone, but save what they have to be distributed to the creditors evenly?  I've never heard of that happening in a personal bankruptcy case, so it just seems odd to me... I've never heard of anyone not being able to choose who they want to pay right up to the point that they make the official declaration of bankruptcy.

[ArticMine]

Bold on the Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย quote my emphasis. It is Bittalk Media Ltd, who is liable here. What we are talking about here is a corporation turning over some of its shares held in trust for one of its shareholders in exchange for some very questionable liabilities of the shareholder, without a right of offset, with multiple international jurisdictions involved and where the shareholder in question is at risk of bankruptcy! Talk about a legal hornets' nest. The legal fees to clean up this mess alone can easily bankrupt many a business start up.

I missed that but I still don't see how BitTalk is liable for anything.  If Matt choses to trade some of his liabilities for the equity in BitTalk that is his choice.  If he is insolvent (legal definition) and seeks bankruptcy then the tx could be voided but there is legal consequence.  BitTalk could take a loss (in theory) but the odds of all that happening are essentially nil.

Ok, so here's a question:

In the event of a MNW bankruptcy, and assuming he still held partial equity in Bitcoin Magazine, what would happen to that equity?  Would it be sold by the state at auction?  Would it be offered for buyout to the other shareholders at the highest bid price?  Would it be distributed to the creditors?

Also, are individuals treated the same as corporations when it comes to bankruptcy?  If a person is known to be bankrupt soon, then they shouldn't pay anyone, but save what they have to be distributed to the creditors evenly?  I've never heard of that happening in a personal bankruptcy case, so it just seems odd to me... I've never heard of anyone not being able to choose who they want to pay right up to the point that they make the official declaration of bankruptcy.

It would be up to the court and the bankruptcy trustee to sell or transfer that equity for the benefit of the creditors. There may be restrictions of the sale of the equity that would give the remaining shareholders first rights, options to purchase etc. This type of agreement is not uncommon in business startups. As for payments to a creditor by a debtor in anticipation of bankruptcy, these can be reversed in many cases by the other creditors.

[SgtSpike]

Bold on the Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย quote my emphasis. It is Bittalk Media Ltd, who is liable here. What we are talking about here is a corporation turning over some of its shares held in trust for one of its shareholders in exchange for some very questionable liabilities of the shareholder, without a right of offset, with multiple international jurisdictions involved and where the shareholder in question is at risk of bankruptcy! Talk about a legal hornets' nest. The legal fees to clean up this mess alone can easily bankrupt many a business start up.

I missed that but I still don't see how BitTalk is liable for anything.  If Matt choses to trade some of his liabilities for the equity in BitTalk that is his choice.  If he is insolvent (legal definition) and seeks bankruptcy then the tx could be voided but there is legal consequence.  BitTalk could take a loss (in theory) but the odds of all that happening are essentially nil.

Ok, so here's a question:

In the event of a MNW bankruptcy, and assuming he still held partial equity in Bitcoin Magazine, what would happen to that equity?  Would it be sold by the state at auction?  Would it be offered for buyout to the other shareholders at the highest bid price?  Would it be distributed to the creditors?

Also, are individuals treated the same as corporations when it comes to bankruptcy?  If a person is known to be bankrupt soon, then they shouldn't pay anyone, but save what they have to be distributed to the creditors evenly?  I've never heard of that happening in a personal bankruptcy case, so it just seems odd to me... I've never heard of anyone not being able to choose who they want to pay right up to the point that they make the official declaration of bankruptcy.

It would be up to the court and the bankruptcy trustee to sell or transfer that equity for the benefit of the creditors. There may be restrictions of the sale of the equity that would give the remaining shareholders first rights, options to purchase etc. This type of agreement is not uncommon in business startups. As for payments to a creditor by a debtor in anticipation of bankruptcy, these can be reversed in many cases by the other creditors.

To confirm, those payments can be reversed even in the case of personal bankruptcy?

[RoloTonyBrownTown]

Meh, I trust Vlad less than I trust Matthew.

[ydenys]

To mods: can we have Drama subforum pls? Many ppl are not interested in public dirty laundry washing.

+1 this is a fantastic idea!

Yes please.

OT: At least Matthew was intelligent enough to be entertaining. Goat is just goat, as usual.

[DeathAndTaxes]

To confirm, those payments can be reversed even in the case of personal bankruptcy?

Any payment can be "voided" if allowed by statute (in the US it is 90 days prior to the BK petition).  However it is rare for personal payments to be voided.  

An example of a common BK. Someone is in debt (lots of creditors - multiple CC, a signature loan, a loan on a jet ski, loan on car, student loan, mortgage etc).   They get into financial trouble and the liabilities are more than the income.  This person decides to forget the jet ski, CC, and signature loan.  They use the little income they have each month to keep making payments on their mortgage and car note. Technically the trustee could void the prior 3 mortgage and car payments, return that cash back to the bankrupted estate and divide it among creditors.  In 99.9% of the cases the trustee won't.  It is human nature to try and save your home.  The debtor hasn't done anything which indicates that he is trying to defraud anyone. 

Another example.  Same debtor as above but he has $10,000 in gold coins.  He decides to sell the gold coins to his brother for a lawn mower worth ~$100, 90 or less days before the BK petition.  The trustee would likely void this payment.  The gold would return to the estate.  The brother would become a secured creditor and could either seek to get his lawn mower back or get fair market value on a prorated basis with other creditors.  It is quite obvious the intent of the sale was to defraud the creditors.

In the real world most cases fall in between those two.  Just because a trustee "can" void a payment doesn't mean they always will. There is no absolute rule, or "line in the sand".  Generally speaking trustees use common sense to determine an equitable arrangement. There are far too many unique situations for the law to specify in black and white how to handle every situation.

[SgtSpike]

Thanks D&T, that's exactly the sort of clarification I was looking for.

[Dalkore]

Jesus if all the admins/VIPs/whatevers are going to fuck around as badly as the newbies... wtf are we to do?

\

Time to bring in some new blood.   I love this forum, we just need to clean it up so we can take it to the next level.

[ArticMine]

To confirm, those payments can be reversed even in the case of personal bankruptcy?

Any payment can be "voided" if allowed by statute (in the US it is 90 days prior to the BK petition).  However it is rare for personal payments to be voided.  A classic example. Someone is in debt (lots of creditors - multiple CC, a signature loan, a loan on a jet ski, loan on car, student loan, mortgage etc).   They get into financial trouble and the liabilities are more than the income.

This person decides to forget the jet ski, CC, and signature loan.  They use the little income they have to keep making payments on their mortgage and car note.  Technically the trustee could void the prior 3 mortgage and car payments, return that cash back to the bankrupted estate and divide it among creditors.  In 99.9% of the cases the trustee won't.  It is human nature to try and save your home.  The debtor hasn't done anything which indicates that he is trying to defraud anyone.

Another example.  Same debtor has $10,000 in gold coins.  He decides to sell the gold coins to his brother for a lawn mowever worth ~$100 less than 90 days before the BK petition.  The trustee would likely void this payment.  The gold would return to the estate.  The brother would become a secured creditor and could either seek to get his lawn mower back or get fair market value on a prorated basis with other creditors.

Just because a trustee "can" void a payment doesn't mean they always will.  There is no absolute rule "line in the sand".  Generally speaking trustees use common sense to determine an equitable arrangement. There are far too many unique situations for the law to handle every possible case.

One thing that I would add is that the period is longer if the parties are not dealing at arms length. Here is Canada it would likely be 12 months for the $10,000 in gold coins / lawn mower trade with a family member. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-3/page-68.html#h-32 I do agree it is rare in personal bankruptcies but it can happen especially if there are non arms length deals involved.

[bigasic]

I think its ironic that I gave Matt the option to pay me in a bitcoin magazine subscription rather than paying me directly, it wouldn't have saved him much, but I was thinking I was helping him.. And thanked me for the opportunity.. If it was a big joke, right there he should have told me, "hey, its  really a big scam" but no, he agreed to pay me with a magazine subscription instead of the coins.. So, right there voided his technicality...

But, I would hope that all monies that are payed to Matthew to buy him out from Bitcoin Magazine will/should be used to pay back the bet. Not going to hold my breath, but that's how it should be..

[repentance]

His stock and profits should go towards the debt he has created. I agree.

At fair market price or at the diluted price they're trying to force Matthew to accept?  It's sure as hell not in the interests of anyone planning to sue Matthew that he accepts a token payment for his stake in BitTalk Media Ltd.

[smoothie]

Meh, I trust Vlad less than I trust Matthew.

Oh right you trust PPTs and pirate more than both of them too huh.

LOL comedy gold.

"pirate is going to pay"

LAWL!

[evolve]

Wait...someone is buying mnw debt?

My bet with him was for 2000btc, make me an offer.

[bitcoiners]

Wow, no way I'm trading in Matt's debt to me for a years subscription to his own magazine. lol.  Crazy.

Now if you want to talk equity, I'm listening.  Otherwise, hahahaha.

[bitcoiners]

Wow, no way I'm trading in Matt's debt to me for a years subscription to his own magazine. lol.  Crazy.

Now if you want to talk equity, I'm listening.  Otherwise, hahahaha.

I agree. Vlad and Matthew should get together and offer a plan on how debt holders should take over Matthew's part in the operation.

It would be the right thing to do however I doubt Vlad will do this :/

So then my question is what is our (holders of MNW debt) next step? I have not been contacted by anyone including Vlad.  BitTalk is assuming Matt's debt or trying to.  They are offering monetary value for Matt's debt, i.e. mag subscriptions.  This leads me to two conclusions.  1. They are trying to assume Matt's stake in the company to take over his assets in the company to get rid of him. 2. They are trying to sweep this under the rug and allow Matt a "get out of jail free" option.  Both of which acknowledge Matthew's obligations to his debt holders and his contract to us.  Period.

I will not settle for a year subscription.  I see them desperately trying to achieve that.  Matt owes me 1000 BTC.  Matt co-owns Bittalk.  Either I get equity or I have to move on to other means to get my legally obligated debt.

Why haven't you contacted me Vlad?  I'm owed just as everyone else.  I do not like what I see right now.  Nor do I like my options.