Wtf can you do when an operator goes rogue ?

[repentance]

I'd like to think formalizing and legalizing the process has helped.

My guess is that it also helped you gain a more concrete understanding of your rights and responsibilities and what's potentially at stake, making you far less likely to proceed with the business if you're not willing to accept those responsibilities.

It pisses me off no end when people claim that they "can't afford a lawyer" when they start a business.  It tells me that they don't care about understanding and meeting their legal obligations or protecting their own or their customers' interests - why the hell would I want to do business with someone like that?

[1715177490]

1715177490

[1715177490]

1715177490

[1715177490]

1715177490

[1715177490]

1715177490

[1715177490]

1715177490

[burnside]

I'd like to think formalizing and legalizing the process has helped.

My guess is that it also helped you gain a more concrete understanding of your rights and responsibilities and what's potentially at stake, making you far less likely to proceed with the business if you're not willing to accept those responsibilities.

It pisses me off no end when people claim that they "can't afford a lawyer" when they start a business.  It tells me that they don't care about understanding and meeting their legal obligations or protecting their own or their customers' interests - why the hell would I want to do business with someone like that?

It definitely takes money to make money.

If you're going to start up a business you need a good chunk of savings or an investor lined up that is willing to pay out some significant $$ so that you can get things rolling with an accountant and a lawyer.

[Korbman]

My guess is that it also helped you gain a more concrete understanding of your rights and responsibilities and what's potentially at stake, making you far less likely to proceed with the business if you're not willing to accept those responsibilities.

Oh hell yes. Seeing the hurdles in front of me before I started had me seriously contemplating the value of it all. My faith in bitcoin as a means for virtual transactions is a substantial aspect that helped me go through with everything.

It pisses me off no end when people claim that they "can't afford a lawyer" when they start a business.  It tells me that they don't care about understanding and meeting their legal obligations or protecting their own or their customers' interests - why the hell would I want to do business with someone like that?

Couldn't agree more.

It definitely takes money to make money.

If you're going to start up a business you need a good chunk of savings or an investor lined up that is willing to pay out some significant $$ so that you can get things rolling with an accountant and a lawyer.

This is true to an extent. I'm not wealthy by any means, nor did I have any outside investing to get me started (though that option is available to me). I did most of my work through LegalZoom for my business..for their "Business Advantage" I was a part of, they give you free access to a CPA and Business Attorney.
The expensive part on my end was talking with a Securities Lawyer here in Burlington. At $250 a hour, his advice didn't come cheap.

[stochastic]

My question is by owning shares in them should you have unlimited liability if the operator goes rogue ?

I have not heard of any examples of people trying to get money from shareholders? Your loss is limited to the amount you put in.

Its been said many times that the glbse shareholders are liable for nefarios actions.

I am saying that I am essentially being treated on the same level as Nefario. I may as well have a scammer tag because people misunderstand the roles of shareholders and operators. I have been called a scammer and a "co conspirator".

Someone offering a security without a proper shareholder agreement is essentially entrapping the unwary and people need to be aware of it.

if you were a partner (not a shareholder) in GLBSE then you are liable for the actions of GLBSE, which you allowed Nefario to run.  If GLBSE was registered as a corporation or a limited liability company, then you would only be liable for what you put into GLBSE.  If  you just opened a general partnership, well then you are fucked.

[burnside]

if you were a partner (not a shareholder) in GLBSE then you are liable for the actions of GLBSE, which you allowed Nefario to run.  If GLBSE was registered as a corporation or a limited liability company, then you would only be liable for what you put into GLBSE.  If  you just opened a general partnership, well then you are fucked.

This much has been established earlier in the thread. 

I do wonder what legal recourse you have (if any?) if you are lied to when you make the investment?  If someone tells you they are a company, (company = incorporated) and you invest, do you still have this liability?

I've bought a lot of stocks on etrade and I don't think I've ever dug up their actual incorporation paperwork.

[repentance]

I do wonder what legal recourse you have (if any?) if you are lied to when you make the investment?  If someone tells you they are a company, (company = incorporated) and you invest, do you still have this liability?

I've bought a lot of stocks on etrade and I don't think I've ever dug up their actual incorporation paperwork.

Generally speaking, you're expected to conduct due diligence.  Generally speaking, those making an offering should provide sufficient information for you to do so relatively easily - company numbers, licence numbers, etc.   You can very often verify basic information about a company free of charge, so it's becoming more and more difficult to justify not doing due diligence.  

A blatantly false claim - saying that Microsoft has invested in a company, for instance, when they haven't - designed to mislead investors into a false sense of security can shift liability, though, especially if it can't be easily verified.  At that level, though, you're often looking at investors wanting to examine the company's books before making an investment so it's a different ball game (and at that level, the amount of due diligence expected is considerable).

It's probably also worth pointing out that the extent to which you're involved in company activities often determines liability.  "Investor" is a generic term and the means and manner of investment often have a great deal of bearing on liability.

[stochastic]

if you were a partner (not a shareholder) in GLBSE then you are liable for the actions of GLBSE, which you allowed Nefario to run.  If GLBSE was registered as a corporation or a limited liability company, then you would only be liable for what you put into GLBSE.  If  you just opened a general partnership, well then you are fucked.

This much has been established earlier in the thread. 

I do wonder what legal recourse you have (if any?) if you are lied to when you make the investment?  If someone tells you they are a company, (company = incorporated) and you invest, do you still have this liability?

I've bought a lot of stocks on etrade and I don't think I've ever dug up their actual incorporation paperwork.

I know, it just pisses me off that anyone could open a business and not know the risks involved.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I agreed to the bitcoinglobal bylaws which didnt say anything about being a registered company or approaching a lawyer. As far as Im concerned they ceased to exist and the "partnership" was nullified as soon as Nefario stepped into a lawyers office.

Thats why he has a scammer label. he didnt have permission to even speak to a lawyer in the first place. The correct way to do it would be to dissolve BG before ignoring the contract. Doing the opposite nullified it entirely.

You cant quote the fucking contract at me when its been broken by one party to it.

[makomk]

In that case I also see no difference in owning shares in MPEX which would mean buying even 1 share makes you liable for all its debts public and private and satoshidice since both are "unregistered companies"

The fact they are misleading people into unlimited liability is unfortunate.

As far as I'm aware, holders of unregistered securities - which is what MPEX is set up as - don't generally have unlimited liability in the US. (Setting up an unregistered security is of course illegal in the US and many other countries, but it happens fairly frequently.) It's a good thing too, because otherwise that'd make it a lot easier for scammers to operate.

The reason you're probably in deep shit is because GLBSE/Bitcoin Global has effectively been operating like a partnership. MPOE/MPEX shares are non-voting and their owners have no say in how the company's run, whereas from what I can tell you've been taking an active role in day-to-day operations.

[usagi]

I agreed to the bitcoinglobal bylaws which didnt say anything about being a registered company or approaching a lawyer. As far as Im concerned they ceased to exist and the "partnership" was nullified as soon as Nefario stepped into a lawyers office.

Thats why he has a scammer label. he didnt have permission to even speak to a lawyer in the first place. The correct way to do it would be to dissolve BG before ignoring the contract. Doing the opposite nullified it entirely.

You cant quote the fucking contract at me when its been broken by one party to it.

Oh? That isn't the information I have received. The information I have states that Nefario quite clearly announced the need to discuss things with a lawyer because he had legal advice that running the GLBSE was going to land him in Jail. Oh, and all the other reasons for going legit. Such as the number of companies from the conference that wanted to list, including the "big secret" that Nef said "don't tell". Oh, and the theft/ponzi scheme thing. According to the information I have received, this was all discussed well in advance and you had plenty of time to voice any discontent. You knew it had to be this way for quite a number of reasons. Do not now claim that this was never discussed at a meeting and that Nefario did this against the wishes of the other members. You know full well why he went to a lawyer and you know full well that a majority of the members supported this decision. Legitimizing GLBSE was a pre-announced motion in the minutes and was a major topic of discussion. I cannot believe you would try to lie and twist your way out of that fact.

Shutting down the GLBSE is another matter entirely and I am not talking about that at all. Yes, that was probably a bad move on Nef's part. But that is not what I am talking about. Don't get confused. All of this information is on record. A lot of people have access to this information, so I don't see why you are trying to worm your way out of it by lying.

[deeplink]

I agreed to the bitcoinglobal bylaws which didnt say anything about being a registered company or approaching a lawyer. As far as Im concerned they ceased to exist and the "partnership" was nullified as soon as Nefario stepped into a lawyers office.

Thats why he has a scammer label. he didnt have permission to even speak to a lawyer in the first place. The correct way to do it would be to dissolve BG before ignoring the contract. Doing the opposite nullified it entirely.

You cant quote the fucking contract at me when its been broken by one party to it.

Oh? That isn't the information I have received. The information I have states that Nefario quite clearly announced the need to discuss things with a lawyer because he had legal advice that running the GLBSE was going to land him in Jail. Oh, and all the other reasons for going legit. Such as the number of companies from the conference that wanted to list, including the "big secret" that Nef said "don't tell". Oh, and the theft/ponzi scheme thing. According to the information I have received, this was all discussed well in advance and you had plenty of time to voice any discontent. You knew it had to be this way for quite a number of reasons. Do not now claim that this was never discussed at a meeting and that Nefario did this against the wishes of the other members. You know full well why he went to a lawyer and you know full well that a majority of the members supported this decision. Legitimizing GLBSE was a pre-announced motion in the minutes and was a major topic of discussion. I cannot believe you would try to lie and twist your way out of that fact.

Shutting down the GLBSE is another matter entirely and I am not talking about that at all. Yes, that was probably a bad move on Nef's part. But that is not what I am talking about. Don't get confused. All of this information is on record. A lot of people have access to this information, so I don't see why you are trying to worm your way out of it by lying.

usagi, were you a partner or shareholder in GLBSE?

The reason I ask is because you seem to have information that was not disclosed to the public. If it was, please post a link. How did you receive this information?

[repentance]

he didnt have permission to even speak to a lawyer in the first place.

Ummm, he didn't need anyone's permission to speak to a lawyer.  It's the manner in which he acted on the advice he claims to have received which is at issue, not his right to seek that advice in the first place (which was absolute).

[usagi]

usagi, were you a partner or shareholder in GLBSE?

No, I was not. I wanted to become a shareholder before GLBSE shut down, though. I was planning on buying shares and holding them in NYAN. It really would have made what I was doing unique. Unfortunately that didn't turn out too well and GLBSE shut down.

The reason I ask is because you seem to have information that was not disclosed to the public. If it was, please post a link. How did you receive this information?

Lol. To your detriment I assure, you really don't respect who you troll nearly enough. No, you are not asking me because I seem to have info. You are asking me because you are digging for troll ammo. So no I do not have any information that was not disclosed to the public. Not sure where you got that idea. GLBSE minutes were posted to Nefario's scam accusation thread.

[ciuciu]

Bitcoin Oz, why don't you have a scammer tag by now?

[Bitcoin Oz]

In that case I also see no difference in owning shares in MPEX which would mean buying even 1 share makes you liable for all its debts public and private and satoshidice since both are "unregistered companies"

The fact they are misleading people into unlimited liability is unfortunate.

As far as I'm aware, holders of unregistered securities - which is what MPEX is set up as - don't generally have unlimited liability in the US. (Setting up an unregistered security is of course illegal in the US and many other countries, but it happens fairly frequently.) It's a good thing too, because otherwise that'd make it a lot easier for scammers to operate.

The reason you're probably in deep shit is because GLBSE/Bitcoin Global has effectively been operating like a partnership. MPOE/MPEX shares are non-voting and their owners have no say in how the company's run, whereas from what I can tell you've been taking an active role in day-to-day operations.

Incorrect.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I agreed to the bitcoinglobal bylaws which didnt say anything about being a registered company or approaching a lawyer. As far as Im concerned they ceased to exist and the "partnership" was nullified as soon as Nefario stepped into a lawyers office.

Thats why he has a scammer label. he didnt have permission to even speak to a lawyer in the first place. The correct way to do it would be to dissolve BG before ignoring the contract. Doing the opposite nullified it entirely.

You cant quote the fucking contract at me when its been broken by one party to it.

Oh? That isn't the information I have received. The information I have states that Nefario quite clearly announced the need to discuss things with a lawyer because he had legal advice that running the GLBSE was going to land him in Jail. Oh, and all the other reasons for going legit. Such as the number of companies from the conference that wanted to list, including the "big secret" that Nef said "don't tell". Oh, and the theft/ponzi scheme thing. According to the information I have received, this was all discussed well in advance and you had plenty of time to voice any discontent. You knew it had to be this way for quite a number of reasons. Do not now claim that this was never discussed at a meeting and that Nefario did this against the wishes of the other members. You know full well why he went to a lawyer and you know full well that a majority of the members supported this decision. Legitimizing GLBSE was a pre-announced motion in the minutes and was a major topic of discussion. I cannot believe you would try to lie and twist your way out of that fact.

Shutting down the GLBSE is another matter entirely and I am not talking about that at all. Yes, that was probably a bad move on Nef's part. But that is not what I am talking about. Don't get confused. All of this information is on record. A lot of people have access to this information, so I don't see why you are trying to worm your way out of it by lying.

usagi, were you a partner or shareholder in GLBSE?

The reason I ask is because you seem to have information that was not disclosed to the public. If it was, please post a link. How did you receive this information?

Usagi was on Nefario's secret panel to approve glbse assets. They had more access to him than the shareholders did.....

[Bitcoin Oz]

Bitcoin Oz, why don't you have a scammer tag by now?

Not a scammer sorry.

http://thenextweb.com/au/2012/11/29/largest-data-breach-investigation-ever-undertaken-by-australian-law-enforcement-leads-to-a-bust-in-romania/  if you think a Romanian exchange operator is out of reach of western authorities you are kidding yourself.

[deeplink]

usagi, were you a partner or shareholder in GLBSE?

No, I was not. I wanted to become a shareholder before GLBSE shut down, though. I was planning on buying shares and holding them in NYAN. It really would have made what I was doing unique. Unfortunately that didn't turn out too well and GLBSE shut down.

The reason I ask is because you seem to have information that was not disclosed to the public. If it was, please post a link. How did you receive this information?

Lol. To your detriment I assure, you really don't respect who you troll nearly enough. No, you are not asking me because I seem to have info. You are asking me because you are digging for troll ammo. So no I do not have any information that was not disclosed to the public. Not sure where you got that idea. GLBSE minutes were posted to Nefario's scam accusation thread.

Wrong. This is why I asked you:

Usagi was on Nefario's secret panel to approve glbse assets. They had more access to him than the shareholders did.....

So you did have access to information that was not disclosed to the public.

[usagi]

usagi, were you a partner or shareholder in GLBSE?

No, I was not. I wanted to become a shareholder before GLBSE shut down, though. I was planning on buying shares and holding them in NYAN. It really would have made what I was doing unique. Unfortunately that didn't turn out too well and GLBSE shut down.

The reason I ask is because you seem to have information that was not disclosed to the public. If it was, please post a link. How did you receive this information?

Lol. To your detriment I assure, you really don't respect who you troll nearly enough. No, you are not asking me because I seem to have info. You are asking me because you are digging for troll ammo. So no I do not have any information that was not disclosed to the public. Not sure where you got that idea. GLBSE minutes were posted to Nefario's scam accusation thread.

Wrong. This is why I asked you:

Usagi was on Nefario's secret panel to approve glbse assets. They had more access to him than the shareholders did.....

So you did have access to information that was not disclosed to the public.

But I was never on any sort of secret panel. I offered to help nefario organize what was supposed to become a public, community panel, independant from the GLBSE. I did this because he was doing a lot of stupid things like with DMC and kludge and goat and with alberto's ID/info. But he didn't listen to anything I said and the panel was never actually set up. Nefario refused to give control to anyone. So twisting this and claiming it was secret and that I had access to Nefario "more than shareholders" is an extremely dishonest thing. You do get this, don't you? That you (deeplink and bitcoinoz) are the bad buys here?

[Bitcoin Oz]

usagi, were you a partner or shareholder in GLBSE?

No, I was not. I wanted to become a shareholder before GLBSE shut down, though. I was planning on buying shares and holding them in NYAN. It really would have made what I was doing unique. Unfortunately that didn't turn out too well and GLBSE shut down.

The reason I ask is because you seem to have information that was not disclosed to the public. If it was, please post a link. How did you receive this information?

Lol. To your detriment I assure, you really don't respect who you troll nearly enough. No, you are not asking me because I seem to have info. You are asking me because you are digging for troll ammo. So no I do not have any information that was not disclosed to the public. Not sure where you got that idea. GLBSE minutes were posted to Nefario's scam accusation thread.

Wrong. This is why I asked you:

Usagi was on Nefario's secret panel to approve glbse assets. They had more access to him than the shareholders did.....

So you did have access to information that was not disclosed to the public.

But I was never on any sort of secret panel. I offered to help nefario organize what was supposed to become a public, community panel, independant from the GLBSE. I did this because he was doing a lot of stupid things like with DMC and kludge and goat and with alberto's ID/info. But he didn't listen to anything I said and the panel was never actually set up. Nefario refused to give control to anyone. So twisting this and claiming it was secret and that I had access to Nefario "more than shareholders" is an extremely dishonest thing. You do get this, don't you? That you (deeplink and bitcoinoz) are the bad buys here?

The real issue here is that any bitcoin service that tries to "go legit" is going to have the exact same problems glbse did.

Doesnt it bother anyone that any online bitcoin service you use can be targeted like this ?

Its becoming increasingly clear that people are going to have to choose one side or the other and crossing over from "non legit"  to "legit" is for all intents and purposes impossible.