And you can find the answers in the posts above. If you have no further argument stop asking the same questions over and over again.
Where? Show me a single link for a shareholder claim! Otherwise, you do not have any evidence whatsoever!
This is why I didn't want you to get involved. You are not the first person who has asked for evidence or a victim. BCB did too, as did various people over the last 4-5 months. No evidence exists and no victim.
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.
For example. I've already told kjj I know who the major creditors are in this case and have said many times I would be paying everyone what they are owed. I've even outlined it 3 or 4 times.
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.
Example. Meaningless accusations. I just happen to live in a particular juristiction and situation where I do not have to pay tax. The government confirmed this with me.
So your assumptions are based on what? Lack of evidence?
Shill. How much is Usagi paying you to pick up the soap ?
Example. No explanation needed.
An unfair preference (or "voidable preference") is a legal term arising in bankruptcy law where a person or company transfers assets or pays a debt to a creditor shortly before going into bankruptcy, that payment or transfer can be set aside on the application of the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy as an unfair preference or simply a preference
Usagi did not declared bankruptcy, so your evidence is worthless to support kjj's assertion.
If usagi is unable to provide proper accounting, it is reasonable to assume that he is bankrupt.
Example. "If usagi is unable to provide proper accounting, it is reasonable to assume that he is bankrupt." No, it isn't. Plus, I was never asked for such accounting nor was "proper accounting" ever defined. OTOH, I offered to explain any transactoin in the CSV file quite a few times, so this accusation is made from a position of misinformation and/or non-information. BitcoinOz really doesn't know what he is doing here.
As a CPA shareholder I demand to see the books right now. Consider this a letter of demand and if you havent produced the books in 21 days you will be considered insolvent.
This must have been a joke but it outlines how BitcoinOz and others think. If I do not acquiesce to their demands, what happens? I'm an insolvent scammer. LOL?
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.
Example of the kind of illogic that is being passed around. At this point actually it has become a lie to damage an individual (i.e. actual fraud. How ironic.)
I have said many, many times already that I will be paying out to everyone what they are owed. I will NOT be paying everyone at the same time BECAUSE I get the lists and claims out of order. OTOH I already know what the basic percentages are because CPA owned nothing but NYAN and BMF. So there is no problem here.
if the crux of this argument is that preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime.
Then someone should be working on a scammer tag for bitfloor, correct?
As you are surely aware A., the crux is whether or not I paid someone preferentially, and I did not. -->
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1365049#msg1365049 I might add to this that posting a wikipedia article on the definition of fraud does not mean I, Usagi, committed fraud.
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.
No, money is fungible. I am not going to sell the single and account for it individually, 50 separate ways. I am going to sell things and pool things and disperse them in chunks because the accounting is easier. Why split up 20 bitcoins AND disperse 400 shares of x AND 500 shares of y AND 2000 shares of z (and so on down the line with 30 other companies) 50 different ways? No. You don't do that. That's not feasible and no one does that. You calculate the value of everything and pay people based on the value, not the actual content. Content means nothing. Only the value. Because money is fungible. Wow, I cannot believe BitcoinOz and others really don't understand this.
It's like chipping in to buy 5 pizzas for an office party and then demanding 2 slices from each pizza or it's fraud. Who friggen cares if you get 6 slices from one and 4 from another and that's it? NOBODY. And that is what is going on here. Someone is whining because I gave 1 slice to an investor who was owed 10 slices. There's plenty of pizza left for everyone.
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.
I have already stated 5 or 6 times this will not be a problem because we have around 500 bitcoins worth of provable assets right now. As someone who owns or controls 70% of BMF, taking 5 or 10% of what we are owed in order to pay off company debts is fully within our means. I know for a fact there will be way more money for everyone else in short order as analogized above. So no, this is not a problem.
Repentance said in this post that he had screen caps. Others do too. I don't care if anyone posts the contracts. Go ahead. You definately have my permission to do that. I also expect people to read them if they post them. EskimoBob, Deprived and others have my contracts too. But they won't post them because they know that doing so would undermine their own arguments against me. This particular argument OTOH has nothing to do with a contract. I see that the BMF-CPA contract was posted. Another done-to-death argument that has no place here. It's like the main strategy has become obfuscation and side-stepping.
I remember when usagi had 2 motions on glbse and I giot confused because the one for BMF and the one for CPA had exactly the same wording. In effect there was no separation between the companies. You could say it was just different divisions of the same company.
Never happened with anything material.
It's all the shareholders of BMF (at that time) whose shares should have been worth a lot more had the insurance policy been claimed on.
I gave BMF 100 bitcoins of my own personal money back when the mining crash happened, and the BMF-CPA contract has been discussed to death already. So Deprived is arguing from a position of misinformation or non-information.
When asked about it usagi just ignored all questions for a month or two - calling anyone who asked a troll and claiming it had all been answered before (it hadn't). Then finally the explanation came out - that it was somehow a test of a new contract: which is plainly bullshit given BMF investors were told they had insurance cover (NOT "here's what a contract would like like IF we had such cover") and paid some premiums.
It's not hard to understand.
Not hard to understand.. just a lie. For example, does anyone really believe I "ignored all questions for a month or two"? Oh come on, people have accused me of trolling my own threads..... no one who has been following this believes I ignored Deprived for a day, let alone two months.
