Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I said I would transfer them to "a person " not "people".

 Im not going to transfer them to 50 people or 2 people. YOU can get the shares and do that yourself.

What exactly is the problem here ? Give me a fucking name to send them too.

[usagi]

I said I would transfer them to "a person " not "people".

 Im not going to transfer them to 50 people or 2 people. YOU can get the shares and do that yourself.

What exactly is the problem here ? Give me a fucking name to send them too.

The problem is you're being a jerk and spreading rumors on the forums that I am a criminal.

I've asked you to stop doing this. I've made that part clear. Other than that I have no intention of watching you flap your lips and be rude to me for, really, nothing.

I seriously don't know why you didn't just discuss what you wanted with me in PM. I've decided to ignore you for a couple of days while I think who to assign the shares to. I might even just claim them myself if liquidating them/distributing them that way is not overly difficult. Again: Not a big deal. I don't know why you ever started posting on this thread. You should probably stop now. And edit my company out of your stupid "unlimited liability" thread. If you really believe assigning 2,000 shares of your company ( And I fucking supported your idea dude ) gives you unlimited liability then you REALLY ARE a jerk.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I said I would transfer them to "a person " not "people".

 Im not going to transfer them to 50 people or 2 people. YOU can get the shares and do that yourself.

What exactly is the problem here ? Give me a fucking name to send them too.

The problem is you're being a jerk and spreading rumors on the forums that I am a criminal.

I've asked you to stop doing this. I've made that part clear. Other than that I have no intention of watching you flap your lips and be rude to me for, really, nothing.

I seriously don't know why you didn't just discuss what you wanted with me in PM. I've decided to ignore you for a couple of days while I think who to assign the shares to. I might even just claim them myself if liquidating them/distributing them that way is not overly difficult. Again: Not a big deal. I don't know why you ever started posting on this thread. You should probably stop now. And edit my company out of your stupid "unlimited liability" thread. If you really believe assigning 2,000 shares of your company ( And I fucking supported your idea dude ) gives you unlimited liability then you REALLY ARE a jerk.

I was using it as an example.
I said it makes you a partner. Unless you are an actual corporation which limits the liability of shareholders.

[kjj]

Step 1, decide to shut down.
Step 2, freeze everything.  And I do mean everything.

Step 3a, begin liquidation
Step 3b, have everyone that could possibly consider themselves a creditor to the company submit documentation of debt.
Step 3c, verify that your shareholder information is correct

Step 4b, verify debts, dispute and resolve if applicable
Step 4c, resolve any shareholder ownership issues

Step 5, Once enough assets have been liquidated from step 3a to cover all debts from step 4b, pay them all.  If you run out of assets and still don't have enough, switch to seniority.  Starting from the most senior debts, pay all or in proportion until you run out of money, advancing down the seniority levels.  Example: If you owe $10 to 1 senior creditor and $10 each to 9 juniors, and you have $50, you pay the senior guy $10 and the juniors each get $4.44.

Guess who the senior creditor is, buddy?

In that case, why don't you just produce the documentation?

If you are, in fact, the most senior creditor, just show everyone the note.  Also please include either the signed statements from all prior creditors, indicating that they agree to become junior creditors, or a notarized document sworn by an officer of the company attesting that there are no other creditors.

You do have those documents, right?  I mean, a mighty titan of industry like yourself surely knows that properly establishing debt seniority isn't merely a matter of claiming it after the liquidation starts...

Let me say this part very clearly so that you understand it.  Your plan to preferentially offset one shareholder, at assumed face value, is active outright fraud.  You need to stop what you are doing right now and start taking this seriously, go back to step 1 and work through the process the right way.

No, you're a clueless jerk. It's not preferentially affecting anyone. I have around 300 bitcoins worth of shares I'm working on dispersing right now. Paying those 300 bitcoins out to the remaining shareholders would mean they already got a bigger share than we did based on ownership. Stop being a fucktard.

I can make no sense of this statement.  Who is "we"?  If "we" is "you", and you are a shareholder, you must treat your own shares identically to all other shares.

Let me reiterate that there are people sitting in prison right now for doing the stuff that you are proposing.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Let me reiterate that there are people sitting in prison right now for doing the stuff that you are proposing.

[repentance]

Hang on, didn't usagi claim that the reason he was going to use the mining equipment to satisfy a debt he'd personally guaranteed was because he directly and indirectly owned the majority of shares and that if/when other assets became available he'd reduce the amount of his/CPA's claim by the amount already received from the sale of the mining equipment and it would all be a wash (which is still technically the wrong way to do it because if no other assets are realised then he's personally benefited while other shareholders have received nothing).

Is he now claiming that he - personally - holds a secured interest over that equipment and is entitled to the proceeds of the sale of them?  If he actually held a secured interest over the equipment, then the extent of his shareholdings would be irrelevant, so why did he prattle on about his shareholdings being the reason he was entitled to sell the equipment?  He makes this shit up as he goes along.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Hang on, didn't usagi claim that the reason he was going to use the mining equipment to satisfy a debt he'd personally guaranteed was because he directly and indirectly owned the majority of shares and that if/when other assets became available he'd reduce the amount of his/CPA's claim by the amount already received from the sale of the mining equipment and it would all be a wash (which is still technically the wrong way to do it because if no other assets are realised then he's personally benefited while other shareholders have received nothing).

Is he now claiming that he - personally - holds a secured interest over that equipment and is entitled to the proceeds of the sale of them?  If he actually held a secured interest over the equipment, then the extent of his shareholdings would be irrelevant, so why did he prattle on about his shareholdings being the reason he was entitled to sell the equipment?  He makes this shit up as he goes along.

Yes that is the case and there is no evidence that a "secured note" exists. As a CPA shareholder I certainly didnt sign such a thing that would make usagi have first rights on any assets.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I said I would transfer them to "a person " not "people".

 Im not going to transfer them to 50 people or 2 people. YOU can get the shares and do that yourself.

What exactly is the problem here ? Give me a fucking name to send them too.

The problem is you're being a jerk and spreading rumors on the forums that I am a criminal.

I've asked you to stop doing this. I've made that part clear. Other than that I have no intention of watching you flap your lips and be rude to me for, really, nothing.

I seriously don't know why you didn't just discuss what you wanted with me in PM. I've decided to ignore you for a couple of days while I think who to assign the shares to. I might even just claim them myself if liquidating them/distributing them that way is not overly difficult. Again: Not a big deal. I don't know why you ever started posting on this thread. You should probably stop now. And edit my company out of your stupid "unlimited liability" thread. If you really believe assigning 2,000 shares of your company ( And I fucking supported your idea dude ) gives you unlimited liability then you REALLY ARE a jerk.

I said what you are doing is proposing a criminal act, as stated in the other thread. If you really want to preference some shareholders over others thats not on. As a CPA shareholder why would I be a party to asset stripping the company in this manner ?

tl;dr claim the assets yourself Im not a co conspirator in your dodgy as company shutdown process.

[augustocroppo]

Let me reiterate that there are people sitting in prison right now for doing the stuff that you are proposing.

Who, where and when that happened?

[usagi]

Hang on, didn't usagi claim that the reason he was going to use the mining equipment to satisfy a debt he'd personally guaranteed was because he directly and indirectly owned the majority of shares and that if/when other assets became available he'd reduce the amount of his/CPA's claim by the amount already received from the sale of the mining equipment and it would all be a wash (which is still technically the wrong way to do it because if no other assets are realised then he's personally benefited while other shareholders have received nothing).

Is he now claiming that he - personally - holds a secured interest over that equipment and is entitled to the proceeds of the sale of them?  If he actually held a secured interest over the equipment, then the extent of his shareholdings would be irrelevant, so why did he prattle on about his shareholdings being the reason he was entitled to sell the equipment?  He makes this shit up as he goes along.

Yes that is the case and there is no evidence that a "secured note" exists. As a CPA shareholder I certainly didnt sign such a thing that would make usagi have first rights on any assets.

I don't have first right. I already explained to you what is going on. You and kjj and a few others are being assholes. End of story.

What, you want me to explain it again? I will send out the YARR payments when I get the YARR list. Which for example I did. I will send out other payments when I get proof that there is a valid claim on those. You are a very confused individual. You are whining because CPA sold a single it owned -- which it has proof it owned. What, were you a shareholder? Okay, can you prove that? See this is the problem. I didn't pay too much to CPA. I just did somehting which was logical and convenient. There is PLENTY of shares and bitcoins left over for YOU to get paid in proportion. Don't make the foolish mistake of assuming that all of my companies are really one company. Just because I don't have the share list for BMF does not mean I do not know for a fact that 60-70% of the assets were owned by CPA and myself. I don't need to wait for that. So you can just fucking relax.

You really are an asshole.

[BCB]

The fact that Usagi evidently deleted hundreds of post would imply wrong doing.  IRL that is call destruction of evidence.  

Usagi,  I would suggest you restore those post or allow admins to restore or release.

In the mean time does anyone have a gpg signed contract that usagi broke or failed to honor.

Does anyone have screen shots or copies of the posts that got deleted.  

Maybe you could get MOE-PR or JoelKatz to argue your case, but with out hard proof I'm not sure what admins can do.

[usagi]

The fact that Usagi evidently deleted hundreds of post would imply wrong doing.  IRL that is call destruction of evidence.  

Usagi,  I would suggest you restore those post or allow admins to restore or release.

In the mean time does anyone have a gpg signed contract that usagi broke or failed to honor.

Does anyone have screen shots or copies of the posts that got deleted.  

Maybe you could get MOE-PR or JoelKatz to argue your case, but with out hard proof I'm not sure what admins can do.

Sorry you feel it implies wrongdoing, it doesn't, but I can understand why you might think that. No I don't see any reason to put the posts back (if that is even possible) although as before I will reiterate a mod is free to release any of the information in any deleted post.

The thing is, BCB, that copies of my contracts still exist on the forum and in other places. This is not actually about what I did. This is about some people's illusion of what is and is not fair. I've been under constant attack for months like this. When the trolls get shot down on one accusation they just fire back with another. It's endless. You're also not the first to try and intervene. Try this game: Ask them to clearly lay out what it is, exactly, that I have done, and provide proof -- any proof whatsoever. This has been asked before, but no proof is ever given. Just the vague assertion that I have done something illegal. For example, Bitcoin Oz's "preferential shares" bullshit, or deeplink repeatedly accusing me of "swindling" people.

based on what evidence? The shit that came out of his ass this morning? Doesn't make sense. The danger is, in not responding, people who should know better start to believe it, and then it snowballs.

Half of the problem here is that I am honest and I like to disclose information. Most people don't bother (and this is probably why).

look around at all the clear cases of scamming. I could name ten names. And yet this particular thread family has remained open for over four months without a statement from a mod. There is no clear evidence. In a normal scam accusation case there is clear evidence provided and a mod makes a statement one way or the other eventually. This case is completely different. The mods are neglegent here. A mod should issue a statement, close this thread and ban those trolls.

[kjj]

Half of the problem here is that I am honest and I like to disclose information. Most people don't bother (and this is probably why).

No, the whole problem is that western jurisprudence has clearly decided how these things are to be done, a set of standards and practices refined over the last two thousand years, but you are ignoring your clearly defined fiduciary obligations and just doing whatever the fuck you want.

+1 for honesty, but -9 for making it up as you go.

[usagi]

Half of the problem here is that I am honest and I like to disclose information. Most people don't bother (and this is probably why).

No, the whole problem is that western jurisprudence has clearly decided how these things are to be done, a set of standards and practices refined over the last two thousand years, but you are ignoring your clearly defined fiduciary obligations and just doing whatever the fuck you want.

No, I'm not.

Just because I sold a single that CPA owned does not mean I am giving preference to myself or to CPA. As soon as the other shareholder lists come in there will be PLENTY of bitcoins and shares to go around. It's like YARR. I will be paying out YARR before I pay out on NYAN or BMF. Do you know why? Hint: It's not because I am committing financial fraud (hint: I am not committing financial fraud). It is because I have proof of who owns those shares.

get it? The thing I need most to move forward on a claim is to know who owns the shares, so that I may begin divvying up the money.

Next time do yourself a favor and don't make baseless accusations or accuse someone of committing a crime without actually understanding what is going on. It makes you look like a retard.

[kjj]

Half of the problem here is that I am honest and I like to disclose information. Most people don't bother (and this is probably why).

No, the whole problem is that western jurisprudence has clearly decided how these things are to be done, a set of standards and practices refined over the last two thousand years, but you are ignoring your clearly defined fiduciary obligations and just doing whatever the fuck you want.

No, I'm not.

Just because I sold a single that CPA owned does not mean I am giving preference to myself or to CPA. As soon as the other shareholder lists come in there will be PLENTY of bitcoins and shares to go around. It's like YARR. I will be paying out YARR before I pay out on NYAN or BMF. Do you know why? Hint: It's not because I am committing financial fraud (hint: I am not committing financial fraud). It is because I have proof of who owns those shares.

get it? The thing I need most to move forward on a claim is to know who owns the shares, so that I may begin divvying up the money.

Next time do yourself a favor and don't make baseless accusations or accuse someone of committing a crime without actually understanding what is going on. It makes you look like a retard.

I've made no accusations.  You said what you were doing, namely acting in your capacity of trustee to sell an asset held in trust by you, for the purpose of paying one beneficiary preferentially.  What you said you were doing was the textbook definition of a crime, namely fraud.  It is also an actionable civil matter commonly known as "breach of fiduciary duty by a trustee".

[usagi]

You said what you were doing, namely acting in your capacity of trustee to sell an asset held in trust by you, for the purpose of paying one beneficiary preferentially.  What you said you were doing was the textbook definition of a crime, namely fraud.  It is also an actionable civil matter commonly known as "breach of fiduciary duty by a trustee".

No, I did not say that. I've said over and over that I am paying out claims as I have verified the status of the shareholders. You must have a problem understanding simple English. You keep babbling on about paying people preferentially. There is no preference. This single was sold to pay off a (one) person because it was convenient to do so. I am not going to sell it and disperse the bitcoins evenly among everyone. There is no reason to do that. it is not logical. It's like, if I have 50 shareholders, what is morelogical, give everyone 6 shares of BTC mining and 20 shares of BITCOINRS? Or give some people 12 shares of BTC-MINING and others 40 shares of BITCOINRS? (to make it very simplistic) -- it's easier to give chunks to people that to give everyone a few crumbs from the five pies you have. I'd rather give oe person one reasonable pie slice than fifty crumbs which, when bunched together, equals one pie slice.

You also seem to be under the delusion that I have to pay everyone at exactly the same time. I don't have to do that because there are several lists of shareholders involved. Paying some people first is not giving preference you idiot.. there are no other verified shareholders right now. So sorry no, that is not a crime.

Can you point out ONE... just ONE verified shareholder of BMF or CPA who has not been paid? Bingo. No victim.

Can you show that I have taken more money than should be fairly allocated to me based on the number of shares I owned? No. I haven't even taken 10%. There is no crime here, just a handful of deluded individuals crying wolf.... again.

As soon as the other lists are received I will send off what I can to those other people. No one will get any more or less than what they are owed. See? No preference. Claims get paid out as they come in. Stop being a retard.

[kjj]

You said what you were doing, namely acting in your capacity of trustee to sell an asset held in trust by you, for the purpose of paying one beneficiary preferentially.  What you said you were doing was the textbook definition of a crime, namely fraud.  It is also an actionable civil matter commonly known as "breach of fiduciary duty by a trustee".

No, I did not say that. I've said over and over that I am paying out claims as I have verified the status of the shareholders. You must have a problem understanding simple English. You keep babbling on about paying people preferentially. There is no preference. This single was sold to pay off a (one) person because it was convenient to do so. I am not going to sell it and disperse the bitcoins evenly among everyone. There is no reason to do that. it is not logical. It's like, if I have 50 shareholders, what is morelogical, give everyone 6 shares of BTC mining and 20 shares of BITCOINRS? Or give some people 12 shares of BTC-MINING and others 40 shares of BITCOINRS? (to make it very simplistic) -- it's easier to give chunks to people that to give everyone a few crumbs from the five pies you have. I'd rather give oe person one reasonable pie slice than fifty crumbs which, when bunched together, equals one pie slice.

You also seem to be under the delusion that I have to pay everyone at exactly the same time. I don't have to do that because there are several lists of shareholders involved. Paying some people first is not giving preference you idiot.. there are no other verified shareholders right now. So sorry no, that is not a crime.

Can you point out ONE... just ONE verified shareholder of BMF or CPA who has not been paid? Bingo. No victim.

Can you show that I have taken more money than should be fairly allocated to me based on the number of shares I owned? No. I haven't even taken 10%. There is no crime here, just a handful of deluded individuals crying wolf.... again.

As soon as the other lists are received I will send off what I can to those other people. No one will get any more or less than what they are owed. See? No preference. Claims get paid out as they come in. Stop being a retard.

Do you get tired avoiding understanding what I'm saying?

A contract of this sort creates a legal pseudo-entity, and there are things that must be done to dissolve such entities.  The proper procedure is not "make it up as I go".  Your documents might not constitute a proper and valid contract, but you have been operating in a way that shows your acceptance for quite a while now, meaning that you won't have an easy time arguing against the validity of the agreements, should you ever end up in court (which is admittedly unlikely).

I never said that you have to pay everyone at the same time.  I gave you a flow of operations that must be done, along with dependencies between the steps.

As far as I can tell:
1.  You don't know who your creditors are.
2.  You don't know who your shareholders are.
3.  You don't know how much value you can get from liquidation.

Given those conditions, you have no idea how much each share of debt is worth, and you have no idea how much each equity share is worth.  Paying one creditor or shareholder (or any subset of them) at an assumed valuation is preferential.  It is pretty much the definition, actually.  In the real world it is a crime as described above.

Saying that you intend to pay everyone at some sort of face value is not a valid defense at this stage, because you don't know if you are capable of actually doing that or not.  Good intentions, in the real world, might reduce your fine or jail time, but it won't prevent the conviction.

P.S.  You keep talking about distributing shares owned by the venture to shareholders.  That is not a valid liquidation strategy, and your difficulties in doing so should be sufficient for you to understand why it is not allowed.  As trustee, you have the option of auctioning assets and allowing creditors and shareholders to "pay" for them using their cut of the liquidation, but it has to be open to the public.

[augustocroppo]

Given those conditions, you have no idea how much each share of debt is worth, and you have no idea how much each equity share is worth.  Paying one creditor or shareholder (or any subset of them) at an assumed valuation is preferential.  It is pretty much the definition, actually.  In the real world it is a crime as described above.

Please, provide evidence to prove that in 'the real world it is a crime as described above'.

Saying that you intend to pay everyone at some sort of face value is not a valid defense at this stage, because you don't know if you are capable of actually doing that or not.  Good intentions, in the real world, might reduce your fine or jail time, but it won't prevent the conviction.

You are implicit in accusing him of a criminal act without evidence to support your claim.

Do you remember this?

I've made no accusations.

[deeplink]

Given those conditions, you have no idea how much each share of debt is worth, and you have no idea how much each equity share is worth.  Paying one creditor or shareholder (or any subset of them) at an assumed valuation is preferential.  It is pretty much the definition, actually.  In the real world it is a crime as described above.

Please, provide evidence to prove that in 'the real world it is a crime as described above'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_preference

[Bitcoin Oz]

Given those conditions, you have no idea how much each share of debt is worth, and you have no idea how much each equity share is worth.  Paying one creditor or shareholder (or any subset of them) at an assumed valuation is preferential.  It is pretty much the definition, actually.  In the real world it is a crime as described above.

Please, provide evidence to prove that in 'the real world it is a crime as described above'.

Saying that you intend to pay everyone at some sort of face value is not a valid defense at this stage, because you don't know if you are capable of actually doing that or not.  Good intentions, in the real world, might reduce your fine or jail time, but it won't prevent the conviction.

You are implicit in accusing him of a criminal act without evidence to support your claim.

Do you remember this?

I've made no accusations.

Usagi doesnt even provide proper profit and loss statements which a company with actual shareholders must provide from time to time. For example how much does CPA or BMF owe in tax ?

He has been paying company tax....right? Usagi doesnt have any company records to produce just a bunch of hot air.