Wtf can you do when an operator goes rogue ?

[Bitcoin Oz]

Cognitive is operated by Garr255
Nasty mining is operated by Og Nasty
CPA/BMF is operated by Usagi.
GLBSE was operated by Nefario.


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

There seems to be some illusion that owning shares in one of them in particular is a different animal than all the rest when there is no actual difference being that the operator controls the day to day operations and the shareholders have very little power to change anything. What can you do when they effectively steal the company and cause massive losses to its customers

Are you supposed to be treated like a leper because you invested in any of these companies which for all intents and purposes are exactly the same ?

If this is the case we are going to have to rethink shareholder agreements in the bitcoin  world. Because if an operator issues a security which makes the buyer liable for massive losses that is unacceptable.

[1714045163]

1714045163

[elux]

Wtf can you do when an operator goes rogue ?

Nothing. Sue them?
Nothing. Call the police?
Nothing. And that's the lesson.

[Bitcoin Oz]

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

Nothing. Sue them?
Nothing. Call the police?
Nothing. And that's the lesson.

I should spend thousands of dollars on a lawsuit because I bought a few shares ? Surely there is a better solution.

[greyhawk]

Cognitive is operated by Garr255
Nasty mining is operated by Og Nasty
CPA/BMF is operated by Usagi.
GLBSE was operated by Nefario.


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

In the real world laws are quite clear about this. Your liability is limited to the worth of your shares.

[bitcoinbear]

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.

[repentance]

In the real world laws are quite clear about this. Your liability is limited to the worth of your shares.

In the real world, distinctions are made between shareholders, directors, investors, partners, actual management staff (such as CEOs), etc and the legal responsibilities of those people are different.  A great deal depends on what people actually do in respect of a company's operations rather than the title they hold - many protections from liability only apply given certain circumstances (for example, not being an "official" director generally won't protect you from liability if you've been undertaking the activities a director undertakes, investors are often only protected if their role is restricted to "safe harbour" activities).

A lot of Bitcoin enterprises represent themselves as "companies" and use the language associated with companies when in fact they are sole traders (which appear to be the case with usagi) or general partnerships (which appears to be the case with BitcoinGlobal and GLBSE) - entities which are totally different in terms of liability.

[greyhawk]

That's of course correct. In my head I was confusing "Babbys first company" with real stock market companies again. Must be all of the cult speak.

[Bitcoin Oz]

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.

[ciuciu]

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.

You were partner, but now you like to call yourself shareholder. How convenient! Haven't seen any of you suing Nefario. Nobody knows his whereabouts. You all must have been the stupidest shareholders!

[repentance]

I may as well have a scammer tag because people misunderstand the roles of shareholders and operators.

Nope.  People understand that GLBSE is most likely really a general partnership, which means that its "shareholders" are actually ordinary partners and therefore jointly and severally liable.  It would be different if GLBSE was an actual company or an actual limited liability partnership, but everything that's been posted indicates that it's not and therefore the protections which would be available to shareholders/investors (from what you've said the role the "shareholders" played was more like that of investors in a limited liability partnership than that of shareholders in a private company) aren't available to you.

[Bitcoin Oz]

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.

You were partner, but now you like to call yourself shareholder. How convenient!

I owned bitcoinglobal shares on glbse and went to shareholder meetings. I also own telstra shares in Australia and go to the annual general shareholder meeting. Exactly what different level of liability does that imply Im not aware of ?

[Bitcoin Oz]

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.

You were partner, but now you like to call yourself shareholder. How convenient! Haven't seen any of you suing Nefario. Nobody knows his whereabouts. You all must have been the stupidest shareholders!

You can find the info yourself its not that hard. Hes not hiding in anyones basement.

As for being a stupid shareholder ask the same thing of enron shareholders.

[ciuciu]

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.

You were partner, but now you like to call yourself shareholder. How convenient! Haven't seen any of you suing Nefario. Nobody knows his whereabouts. You all must have been the stupidest shareholders!

You can find the info yourself its not that hard. Hes not hiding in anyones basement.

As for being a stupid shareholder ask the same thing of enron shareholders.

You had voting decision and you took BTC out of GLBSE. You did not take any safeguards to not let this happen! In my eyes you are liable, your actions will cost me money and reputation.

[repentance]

I owned bitcoinglobal shares on glbse and went to shareholder meetings. I also own telstra shares in Australia and go to the annual general shareholder meeting. Exactly what different level of liability does that imply Im not aware of ?

Telstra is a public company for a start and not even comparable to a private company.   It is an entity which has a separate legal existence from its owners and operators.  BitcoinGlobal is neither a private company, a public company nor a limited liability partnership - literally none of the protections which are available to shareholders/investors in those kinds of legal entities are available to you.  

It doesn't matter how wrong I think Nefario's conduct is - and I do think it's wrong - it's ludicrous not to get legal advice before going into business with someone.  The onus to be aware of the legal implications of investing in BitcoinGlobal rested with what you insist on calling the "shareholders" (who were either investors or partners, depending on what kind of legal entity you believe BitcoinGlobal most resembles).  Stop trying to draw comparisons with Enron and Telstra when you know for a fact that they are not valid.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I may as well have a scammer tag because people misunderstand the roles of shareholders and operators.

Nope.  People understand that GLBSE is most likely really a general partnership, which means that its "shareholders" are actually ordinary partners and therefore jointly and severally liable.  It would be different if GLBSE was an actual company or an actual limited liability partnership, but everything that's been posted indicates that it's not and therefore the protections which would be available to shareholders/investors (from what you've said the role the "shareholders" played was more like that of investors in a limited liability partnership than that of shareholders in a private company) aren't available to you.

I dont give two hoots about what random people "understand". There was a BG asset on glbse which only the shareholders had access too, but it was listed along with all the other shares I owned like cognitive. The fact cognitive didnt have shareholder meetings and glbse did is a moot point.  The fact BG didnt use glbse for motions and cognitive did is arbitrary.


If GLBSE is a partnership so is cognitive,nasty mining,CPA and every other stock on glbse. People can believe otherwise but thats my view of the situation.

The fact I get treated differently than an investor in any of those is bullshit and hypocritical.

[Bitcoin Oz]

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.

You were partner, but now you like to call yourself shareholder. How convenient! Haven't seen any of you suing Nefario. Nobody knows his whereabouts. You all must have been the stupidest shareholders!

You can find the info yourself its not that hard. Hes not hiding in anyones basement.

As for being a stupid shareholder ask the same thing of enron shareholders.

You had voting decision and you took BTC out of GLBSE. You did not take any safeguards to not let this happen! In my eyes you are liable, your actions will cost me money and reputation.

I voted to sack Nefario. What do you expect to accomplish with 2% of the vote ?

[ciuciu]

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.

You were partner, but now you like to call yourself shareholder. How convenient! Haven't seen any of you suing Nefario. Nobody knows his whereabouts. You all must have been the stupidest shareholders!

You can find the info yourself its not that hard. Hes not hiding in anyones basement.

As for being a stupid shareholder ask the same thing of enron shareholders.

You had voting decision and you took BTC out of GLBSE. You did not take any safeguards to not let this happen! In my eyes you are liable, your actions will cost me money and reputation.

I voted to sack Nefario. What do you expect to accomplish with 2% of the vote ?

You should have made a motion to have a copy of the database at all time, to protect your investment and mine. Lucky for all of you, you didn't.

[burnside]

I think the reason people keep telling you you were in a partnership is because GLBSE was not formally incorporated.  It's the act of incorporating and operating within that structure that grants you limited personal liability.

Nefario screwed you more ways than you realize by leading you to believe you had shares in a company, when in reality you were buying into a partnership.  Sorry man.  

Perhaps this is part of why Nefario got cold feet all of a sudden.  He may not have realized that he had personal liability until he went and talked to his lawyer.

I will note that this is a consistent issue which I see happening again and again... MPEx has in it's contracts "MPEx, an unregistered company."  Satoshi Dice... "SatoshiDice!, an unregistered company", and so on and so forth.  Most likely nearly all of the issues on MPEx and CryptoStocks have this problem... In most countries until you formally register your corporation, you do not have any of the legal benefits of a corporation!  Did MPEx relay to the owner of SatoshiDice that in reality he's now in a partnership with all of these people?  I highly doubt it.  Do all of these shareholders (partners) realize they're on the hook for anything illegal SatoshiDice participates in?  I doubt that too... Scary really, when you think about it.

BTC-TC and LTC-GLOBAL attempt to avoid this issue and protect everyone by stating in the ToS that if an issue fails you agree that you have zero recourse because, after all, it's all virtual.  Does this mean that we'll lose out on "real" business.  Most certainly.  However, I would also strongly encourage any such "real" business to also look at the alternatives closely.  As they are almost certainly not even legal to use in most jurisdictions.

Ugh... the whole situation sucks horribly.  

[Bitcoin Oz]

I think the reason people keep telling you you were in a partnership is because GLBSE was not formally incorporated.  It's the act of incorporating and operating within that structure that grants you limited personal liability.

Nefario screwed you more ways than you realize by leading you to believe you had shares in a company, when in reality you were buying into a partnership.  Sorry man.  

Perhaps this is part of why Nefario got cold feet all of a sudden.  He may not have realized that he had personal liability until he went and talked to his lawyer.

I will note that this is a consistent issue which I see happening again and again... MPEx has in it's contracts "MPEx, an unregistered company."  Satoshi Dice... "SatoshiDice!, an unregistered company", and so on and so forth.  Most likely nearly all of the issues on MPEx and CryptoStocks have this problem... In most countries until you formally register your corporation, you do not have any of the legal benefits of a corporation!  Did MPEx relay to the owner of SatoshiDice that in reality he's now in a partnership with all of these people?  I highly doubt it.  Do all of these shareholders (partners) realize they're on the hook for anything illegal SatoshiDice participates in?  I doubt that too... Scary really, when you think about it.

BTC-TC and LTC-GLOBAL attempt to avoid this issue and protect everyone by stating in the ToS that if an issue fails you agree that you have zero recourse because, after all, it's all virtual.  Does this mean that we'll lose out on "real" business.  Most certainly.  However, I would also strongly encourage any such "real" business to also look at the alternatives closely.  As they are almost certainly not even legal to use in most jurisdictions.

Ugh... the whole situation sucks horribly.  

I asked MPOE before if Mr Popescu goes off the deep end are the "shareholders" liable and got no answer. I think you just confirmed my suspicions.

Scary.

Edit : perhaps you can write a guide explaining how you go about setting up a corp in belize. For dummies

[repentance]

People can believe otherwise but thats my view of the situation.

The fact I get treated differently than an investor in any of those is bullshit and hypocritical.

Your view is fine, but it's irrelevant to the legal realities.  Your view is a reflection of how you believe things should be in the world of toy businesses.

I doubt that anyone is going to sue the "shareholders" of BitcoinGlobal.  In the "real" world, if they did then it would be up to whichever shareholders ending up paying out the judgement/settlement to try to recover funds from Nefario and/or the other shareholders.

I doubt that anyone is going to sue usagi, either, even though he's improperly using what should be secured assets for personal advantage.  In respect of usagi's ventures, it seems much more clear cut that his shareholders are not partners and that he's essentially operating as a sole trader (which would make him the only one legally responsible for any debts).