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

[augustocroppo]

Observation: 'Usagi is unable to provide proper accounting.'

Again: learn to read. I didn't say usagi is unable to provide proper accounting. I said "... if usagi doesn't provide proper accounting".

Learn to read. I didn't say that it proves, but that it is reasonable to assume if usagi doesn't provide proper accounting.

The rest of your argument is unclear. Feel free to explain what your point is.

Nice strawman you made there though.

Exactly, augustocroppo, you may also want to read some more about strawman and other logical fallacies while your at it.

Still, you did not presented any evidence as I have required. I am not interested in logical fallacies.

Whatever pretension you have, your assumption does not prove that Usagi is defrauding his investors.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Observation: 'Usagi is unable to provide proper accounting.'

Again: learn to read. I didn't say usagi is unable to provide proper accounting. I said "... if usagi doesn't provide proper accounting".

Learn to read. I didn't say that it proves, but that it is reasonable to assume if usagi doesn't provide proper accounting.

The rest of your argument is unclear. Feel free to explain what your point is.

Nice strawman you made there though.

Exactly, augustocroppo, you may also want to read some more about strawman and other logical fallacies while your at it.

Still, you did not presented any evidence as I have required. I am not interested in logical fallacies.

Whatever pretension you have, your assumption does not prove that Usagi is defrauding his investors.

Usagi stated that intent himself. It wasnt like some accused him of doing it .

He said he was boxing up assets and paying out one creditor over another. Are you saying usagi was making a false statement.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Apparently usagi's now selling off FPGAs bought using BMF funds on behalf of BMF shareholders and using the proceeds to repay the "liquidity loans" he took out for CPA, presumably because he offered to make himself personally liable for those loans but reckons he can tell the BMF shareholders to go screw themselves:

First point.
1. Due to the closing of GLBSE, CPA has ceased to exist. All of our assets were on the GLBSE so we have no money and no operations and no income from operations.
2. Before GLBSE closed, BMF ordered a few FPGA and ASIC singles.
3. Both I myself, and CPA, owned 800 and change shares of BMF.
4. Therefore I have valid, personal claim on these singles, as does CPA.
5. Therefore this FPGA will be sold to pay off a loanholder (jborkl).
STATUS: I'm boxing and shipping it today. I will update this post with links to the receipt and tracking number later.


Second point.
1. I promised to be personally responsible for the CPA liquidity loans.

That's gotta be fraud, surely?

re-quoted for posterity.

[augustocroppo]

He said he was boxing up assets and paying out one creditor over another. Are you saying usagi was making a false statement.

I am asking for evidence which proves that Usagi enterprise is bankrupt.

[Bitcoin Oz]

He said he was boxing up assets and paying out one creditor over another. Are you saying usagi was making a false statement.

I am asking for evidence which proves that Usagi enterprise is bankrupt.

Usagi already said "CPA has ceased to exist"

Why are you arguing about semantics ?

[deeplink]

Still, you did not presented any evidence as I have required.

The evidence you require (for what exactly?) has been presented many times.

Re-read the last posts and let me know which points are still unclear to you.

[deeplink]

I am not interested in logical fallacies.

You should be if you are trying to make an argument.

[BCB]

I'm not trying to make an argument.

Are you requesting a scammer tag because Usagi is making preferential payment for his bankrupt company? 

[Deprived]

Apparently usagi's now selling off FPGAs bought using BMF funds on behalf of BMF shareholders and using the proceeds to repay the "liquidity loans" he took out for CPA, presumably because he offered to make himself personally liable for those loans but reckons he can tell the BMF shareholders to go screw themselves:

First point.
1. Due to the closing of GLBSE, CPA has ceased to exist. All of our assets were on the GLBSE so we have no money and no operations and no income from operations.
2. Before GLBSE closed, BMF ordered a few FPGA and ASIC singles.
3. Both I myself, and CPA, owned 800 and change shares of BMF.
4. Therefore I have valid, personal claim on these singles, as does CPA.
5. Therefore this FPGA will be sold to pay off a loanholder (jborkl).
STATUS: I'm boxing and shipping it today. I will update this post with links to the receipt and tracking number later.


Second point.
1. I promised to be personally responsible for the CPA liquidity loans.

That's gotta be fraud, surely?

re-quoted for posterity.

If you really want a logical fallacy Augusto (as opposed to just to keep hanging off usagi's dick) then look at what usagi said there in the quote.

Look at point 3.
Then look at point 4 - which begins "therefore" - indicating a (supposed logical connection).

And there's a logical fallacy.

IF point 4 had said "Therefore I and CPA together have a valid claim on a percentage of those singles equivalent to the percentage that 800 is of outstanding shares" then it would have been better (not quite right - but getting there).  Note that point 5 (and other posts from usagi - if it hasn't deleted them yet) make plain that it wasn't just a typo - but a stated intent to take the entire cash raised from the sale (and then use it on some mix of personal/CPA debt - which usagi appears not to ever appreciate are seperate).

For other examples of logical fallacy look (if you can still find them quoted - as most originals were deleted) at usagi's various statements over the past months that go along the lines of "I hold/control a majority of shares so I can do what I want" - making the error of believing that one factor in determining ability to act (number of shares in favour) totally negates all others (e.g. fiduciary duty, avoiding conflict of interest etc).

[augustocroppo]

Usagi already said "CPA has ceased to exist"

Why are you arguing about semantics ?

That is not the definition of bankrupt:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bankrupt?q=bankrupt

Definition of bankrupt
adjective
1 (of a person or organization) declared in law as unable to pay their debts

2 completely lacking in a particular good quality

noun
a person judged by a court to be insolvent, whose property is taken and disposed of for the benefit of their creditors.

Did Usagi declared insolvency? There are evidence which indicates that he is not able to pay back the CPA debt?

[augustocroppo]

For other examples of logical fallacy look (if you can still find them quoted - as most originals were deleted) at usagi's various statements over the past months that go along the lines of "I hold/control a majority of shares so I can do what I want" - making the error of believing that one factor in determining ability to act (number of shares in favour) totally negates all others (e.g. fiduciary duty, avoiding conflict of interest etc).

So, you certainly have the contract which specifies Usagi's 'fiduciary duty' to avoid 'conflict of interest' with the best of his 'ability'.

Where is?

[Bitcoin Oz]

Usagi already said "CPA has ceased to exist"

Why are you arguing about semantics ?

That is not the definition of bankrupt:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bankrupt?q=bankrupt

Definition of bankrupt
adjective
1 (of a person or organization) declared in law as unable to pay their debts

2 completely lacking in a particular good quality

noun
a person judged by a court to be insolvent, whose property is taken and disposed of for the benefit of their creditors.

Did Usagi declared insolvency? There are evidence which indicates that he is not able to pay back the CPA debt?

Usagi is only entitled to his percentage of the equipment not 100%. He cant take the entire amount but has to divide it equally amongst existing shareholders.

He basically stole 30% or whatever percentage of shares he doesnt own.

[deeplink]

Are you requesting a scammer tag because Usagi is making preferential payment for his bankrupt company?  

BCB, a scammer tag for usagi has been requested before for various reasons.

Applying for reconsideration of the scammer tag for usagi.

1) usagi has been misleading his customers in the past in various fraudulent business schemes

Even if it were the case that this was not enough for a scammer tag, he now:

2) has deleted about 1000 of this posts to remove the evidence
3) does not want those posts to be restored

Something else to be considered:

4) he has a VIP label and should therefor be under extra scrutiny

5)  Is back hawking a new business venture in this community despite there being unresolved issues surrounding his past ventures.  If the point of the scammer tag is to warn people against dealing with those who have an unsatisfactory record when it comes to meeting their obligations, then this is exactly the kind of situation in which it can be useful.

We can now add:

6) usagi is making preferential payments for a liquidating company. Whether the company is bankrupt or not cannot be proven at this point due to requested but still missing accounting information. But even if the company is not bankrupt and only being closed down, making preferential payments is scamming the other creditors:

The exact same procedures are used for the dissolution of any legal entity.  A bankruptcy is just one form of the general closure process, other examples exist, including trusts and estates.  The same concepts apply in general, but there are a few exceptions in different branches.  Common to all is that someone is managing, liquidating, and distributing assets that do not belong to them * , and that they have a fiduciary duty to treat all claimants equitably.  The notion of equity shifts a bit in different types of cases too, for example, you can put somewhat arbitrary rules in your will, and the trustee is expected to follow them, and only genuine residue after the will is fully executed is requires an equitable distribution.

If he personally declared bankruptcy, he would not be the trustee of his own liquidation, one would be appointed by a judge/magistrate, and I bet if that happened, the poor guy would have to take up drinking after sorting out this mess.  I'm still going on the assumption that there is no official record of his ventures as registered legal entities, which strongly suggests that his "contracts" created an assumed trust, and that said trust is now under liquidation.

Since an assumed trust exists because of the contract that spawned it, such a contract can specify peculiar rules for liquidation, and those rules should be followed (unless someone files for an injunction, or unless the rules are contrary to some other law).  In all other cases, including, as far as I can tell, this case, the default rules should be followed, and if a court got involved (unlikely here, but still) they would appoint someone to do it pretty much like I described.


* The person managing the assets is generally known generally as a trustee, but they also called a receiver in certain types of bankruptcy, etc.  The assets themselves are still owned by the corporation, if properly incorporated, by the estate, or by "the trust" (which is the pseudo-entity that is assumed to exist whenever a contract requires such a thing) until liquidated/distributed.  Note that the trustee may, in some cases, also be a claimant.  For example, a child of the deceased in estate matters, or the managing partner in a partnership, or a shareholder/manager in a small company or corporation.  Such people need to be very careful, because the burden of proof is surprisingly low in civil matters.  For that reason, generally, no one will come after you with criminal charges unless you are a huge dick, but many breaches of fiduciary duty also meet the definitions of criminal fraud.

[BCB]

what evidence is contained in his deleted posts?

[deeplink]

what evidence is contained in his deleted posts?

Contracts of usagi's companies
Links to spreadsheets and information about usagi's companies on his website (which he has also taken offline)
Announcements and results of shareholder motions
Arguments between usagi and various forum members about how he has been misleading customers in fraudulent business schemes

This thread is a good starting point but without the deleted posts it will be complicated to understand what really happened.

[Bitcoin Oz]

what evidence is contained in his deleted posts?

Contracts of usagi's companies
Links to spreadsheets and information about usagi's companies on his website (which he has also taken offline)
Announcements and results of shareholder motions
Arguments between usagi and various forum members about how he has been misleading customers in fraudulent business schemes

This thread is a good starting point but without the deleted posts it will be complicated to understand what really happened.

Im sure theymos can dig them up....

[MPOE-PR]

So, you certainly have the contract which specifies Usagi's 'fiduciary duty' to avoid 'conflict of interest' with the best of his 'ability'.

Where is?

It's tucked away in your merit certificate presentation cask. Look well in all the folds and thou shalt find it.

[repentance]

Usagi is only entitled to his percentage of the equipment not 100%. He cant take the entire amount but has to divide it equally amongst existing shareholders.

He basically stole 30% or whatever percentage of shares he doesnt own.

Somewhat true.  Shareholders only get a distribution from any surplus left after all other debts have been satisfied unless they have a secured or preferential interest.  So even if usagi is the major shareholder, all other debts of the entity in question need to be satisfied before he can receive his share of the surplus.  All creditors within the same class must be treated equally.

The major problem with usagi's approach (from a practical as well as a technical point of view) is that there is no guarantee that any other assets of BMF will be realised.  If the equipment is the only asset which is realised, then usagi has given himself preferential treatment at the expense of other BMF creditors in order to pay off a CPA debt (which is essentially a personal debt).  usagi has provided no evidence that he had a secured interest in the mining equipment (which doesn't come about purely because he's the major shareholder in BMF or because his name might be on the receipt for the equipment).  He needs to explain how that secured interest was created and how he's legally a secured or preferential creditor of BMF.

Contracts of usagi's companies
Links to spreadsheets and information about usagi's companies on his website (which he has also taken offline)
Announcements and results of shareholder motions
Arguments between usagi and various forum members about how he has been misleading customers in fraudulent business schemes

This thread is a good starting point but without the deleted posts it will be complicated to understand what really happened.

He deleted literally hundreds upon hundreds of posts.  Here's one thread in which it some stuff was discussed.

The second post quotes in full an October 4 post by usagi which is pretty critical to the way this has all been handled.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=printpage;topic=115284.0

I have screen caps of the account 12, account 15 and account 16 CPA contracts if anyone needs them. 

[deeplink]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=printpage;topic=115284.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115284.0

FTFY (easier to read)

[Deprived]

Usagi is only entitled to his percentage of the equipment not 100%. He cant take the entire amount but has to divide it equally amongst existing shareholders.

He basically stole 30% or whatever percentage of shares he doesnt own.

Somewhat true.  Shareholders only get a distribution from any surplus left after all other debts have been satisfied unless they have a secured or preferential interest.  So even if usagi is the major shareholder, all other debts of the entity in question need to be satisfied before he can receive his share of the surplus.  All creditors within the same class must be treated equally.

I think in this instance there may be no other debts.  The mining gear was BMF's - and they had no disclosed debts.  The debts were all CPA's/usagi's own (no way to seperate the two).

The preferential treatment of one shareholder (usagi) over the rest is nothing new.  One of usagi's favourite tricks was inflating the price of its own shares (easy to do due to the perverse valuation method used) then buying its own shares back at its own claimed full value, without the same being extended to others.  Or at the other end of the scale making a statement in the CPA thread bout how (paraphrasing as cba to find copy of original) "if more people default on us CPA will have nothing left", then buying up shares people panic sold, BRAGGING about getting those shares cheap, then announcing that after all there wasn't a risk of going bust and all was good.  And it actually seemed to think doing that was perfectly fine.

I notice in the last mentions usagi made about the BMF insurance thing (in theory BMF is still owed 500 BTC from CPA for that - or would be if usagi ever made a claim against CPA on BMF's behalf) that it's now back to its initial explanation (only eventually made a few months after I raised it - te claims it had been explained multiple times are just outright lies) that the contract was somehow just a "test" - though why BMF needed to actually pay premiums or the shareholders had to be told insurance cover was in place for this "test" to work was never made clear.  But if someone has a look in the last posts usagi made on that topic before GLBSE died (posts ofc are now deleted) you'd find that usagi was at the stage of admitting that the BTC was in theory owed and actually talking about various ways to address it - including CPA returning its shares in BMF to BMF.  The argument against this (by usagi) was basically that it would hurt CPA - as ever, consistently failing to seperate duties to different entities and advising BMF shareholders based on CPA's interests.