NEO and BEE talk (unmoderated)

[NotLambchop]

You are trading on an licenced Panamanian exchange in shares of a company illegally funded by US investors, just where do laws come into this?  Whose laws?  US?  Cyprus? Panama?
Things kids say

[minerpart]

They put USD into a NB pay-in account didn't they? That would then take a day or two to process before NB could move it to an exchange to buy the coins? And then the coins need to be transferred into their NB account? This could take 4 days during which the bank may have ceased trading. How else would it work?

They could have reserves in order to pay you now.
Pretty simple, actually.

They could but where is the fun in that? Banks make profit from holding your funds for a few days before processing them. The bigger the sum being regularly 'held in processing' the more profit the bank can make form this free cash. I'm not saying N+B were holding for processing but their partnered FIAT agency/middleman or whatever they were using to process their USD. N+B could obviously pay out from reserves immediately and probably would have in the future despite the processing delays in FIAT but you wouldn't if coins were tight at N+B. And coins were tight.

[sporket]

[thekekk]

You are trading on an licenced Panamanian exchange in shares of a company illegally funded by US investors, just where do laws come into this?  Whose laws?  US?  Cyprus? Panama?
Things kids say

If that was the case SEC will have not make any enquiries to anyone neither MPEX

[Luttinen]

You are trading on an licenced Panamanian exchange in shares of a company illegally funded by US investors, just where do laws come into this?  Whose laws?  US?  Cyprus? Panama?
Things kids say

Said MP's shill who's about to be extradited to US to face charges. Sweet irony and double standards. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=553092.0

Havelock is actually a registered company while MPEx is just one dude and some paid shills, who doesn't even have a registered company behind it.

[minerpart]

You are trading on an licenced Panamanian exchange in shares of a company illegally funded by US investors, just where do laws come into this?  Whose laws?  US?  Cyprus? Panama?
Things kids say

Said MP's shill who's about to be extradited to US to face charges. Sweet irony and double standards. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=553092.0

Havelock is actually a registered company while MPEx is just one dude and some paid shills, who doesn't even have a registered company behind it.

He's not a Shill he is Marcel Popescu. He is online 14hrs a day he's doesn't need shills. He hasn't heard on international extradition treaties based on a common set of laws and values or shared agreements. LOL It's been a long long time since a countries boundary has allowed someone to escape from justice. And Romania IS CERTAINLY NOT THAT COUNTRY!!!

http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2013/three-members-of-international-cyber-fraud-ring-extradited-from-romania-to-the-united-states

[NotLambchop]

You are trading on an licenced Panamanian exchange in shares of a company illegally funded by US investors, just where do laws come into this?  Whose laws?  US?  Cyprus? Panama?
Things kids say

Said MP's shill who's about to be extradited to US to face charges. Sweet irony and double standards. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=553092.0

Havelock is actually a registered company while MPEx is just one dude and some paid shills, who doesn't even have a registered company behind it.

Learn the difference between a registered company and a licenced exchange.  Registering a company is trivial, becoming a licensed exchange isn't.  Havelock is not a licenced exchange.

@thekekk:  Your incoherent sentence fails to answer my question, that being:  Whose laws are being broken and what laws are those?

@minerpart:  Lay off the glue and return to your containment thread, where you may continue with your failings.

[thekekk]

You are trading on an licenced Panamanian exchange in shares of a company illegally funded by US investors, just where do laws come into this?  Whose laws?  US?  Cyprus? Panama?
Things kids say

Said MP's shill who's about to be extradited to US to face charges. Sweet irony and double standards. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=553092.0

Havelock is actually a registered company while MPEx is just one dude and some paid shills, who doesn't even have a registered company behind it.

Learn the difference between a registered company and a licenced exchange.  Registering a company is trivial, becoming a licensed exchange isn't.  Havelock is not a licenced exchange.

@thekekk:  Your incoherent sentence fails to answer my question, that being:  Whose laws are being broken and what laws are those?

@minerpart:  Lay off the glue and return to your containment thread, where you may continue with your failings.

You don't seem to understand the difference between company and registered company let alone everything else.
You can pick either UK law or Cyprus law both laws are the same Cyprus law copied from UK. Read the articles of association.

[NotLambchop]

You are trading on an licenced Panamanian exchange in shares of a company illegally funded by US investors, just where do laws come into this?  Whose laws?  US?  Cyprus? Panama?
Things kids say

Said MP's shill who's about to be extradited to US to face charges. Sweet irony and double standards. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=553092.0

Havelock is actually a registered company while MPEx is just one dude and some paid shills, who doesn't even have a registered company behind it.

Learn the difference between a registered company and a licenced exchange.  Registering a company is trivial, becoming a licensed exchange isn't.  Havelock is not a licenced exchange.

@thekekk:  Your incoherent sentence fails to answer my question, that being:  Whose laws are being broken and what laws are those?

@minerpart:  Lay off the glue and return to your containment thread, where you may continue with your failings.

You don't seem to understand the difference between company and registered company let alone everything else.
You can pick either UK law or Cyprus law both laws are the same Cyprus law copied from UK. Read the articles of association.

Fail to answer the question yet again:  Whose laws are being broken, which laws, specifically, and why do these laws apply to an unlicenced Panamanian exchange?

[velacreations]

Link, or more FUD?

vela said that they filed for ceo change, i asked for link, or it is more of his FUD

right here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=553869.msg6053935#msg6053935

Notice that it was submitted on the 14th of March.

[velacreations]

And anyone with 320 btc can take control of the company.

320 btc just buys you the dividends, and only about 1/2 of the pubic shares.

And yesterday, you could have bought all of that for less than 100 btc.

[freedomno1]

And anyone with 320 btc can take control of the company.

320 btc just buys you the dividends, and only about 1/2 of the pubic shares.

And yesterday, you could have bought all of that for less than 100 btc.

Well a Q rating means that if someone takes over the reigns they could easily erase the old shares structure so it is a risk
https://www.sec.gov/answers/qadded.htm

When a company is involved in bankruptcy proceedings, the letter "Q" is added to the end of the company's stock ticker symbol. In most cases, when a company emerges from bankruptcy, the reorganization plan will cancel the existing equity stock and the old shares will be worthless. Given that risk, before purchasing stock in a bankrupt company, investors should read the company's proposed plan of reorganization. For more information about the impact of bankruptcy proceedings on securities, please read our online publication, Corporate Bankruptcy.

[Lohoris]

Well a Q rating means that if someone takes over the reigns they could easily erase the old shares structure so it is a risk
https://www.sec.gov/answers/qadded.htm

When a company is involved in bankruptcy proceedings, the letter "Q" is added to the end of the company's stock ticker symbol. In most cases, when a company emerges from bankruptcy, the reorganization plan will cancel the existing equity stock and the old shares will be worthless. Given that risk, before purchasing stock in a bankrupt company, investors should read the company's proposed plan of reorganization. For more information about the impact of bankruptcy proceedings on securities, please read our online publication, Corporate Bankruptcy.

I don't get it.
Basically they say "we try to rebuild the company and maybe we manage do to it, but even if we are successful, you get nothing".
Umh... why?
I fully understand not giving money back if they are unable to recover, and I definitely understand that creditors should be paid first, but what's the point of "just erasing old shares" instead of "they are last in line"?

[NotLambchop]

...
Basically they say "we try to rebuild the company and maybe we manage do to it, but even if we are successful, you might get nothing".
...

"...investors should read the company's proposed plan of reorganization." (https://www.sec.gov/answers/qadded.htm)

There is no such current proposal, so currently, investors are simply gambling.
This doesn't imply that they are being foolish.  Assuming there is absolutely no underlying value does not preclude wagering that the price will float up and you can get out with profits.  This was done with Labcoin shares, where pretty much everyone knew Labcoin was a scam.  This is Bitcoin, no one has ever gone broke by banking on greater fools.

[Lohoris]

...
Basically they say "we try to rebuild the company and maybe we manage do to it, but even if we are successful, you might get nothing".
...

"...investors should read the company's proposed plan of reorganization." (https://www.sec.gov/answers/qadded.htm)

Sure, but I was wondering why under any circustance "just erasing" old share would make sense. As opposite as, as I suggested, putting them "last in line", just in case something comes up. Which is usually nothing, fine, but at least in the rare case it does, they get it.
Maybe it's obvious to an expert, but it's not to me.

[NotLambchop]

I'm not an expert either, but here's a start:

Upon bankruptcy, a firm will be required to sell all of its assets and pay off all debts. The usual order of debt repayment, in terms of the lender, will be the government, financial institutions, other creditors (i.e. suppliers and utility companies), bondholders, preferred shareholders and, finally, common shareholders. The common shareholders are last because they have a residual claim on the assets in the firm and are a tier below the preferred stock classification. Common shareholders often receive nothing at all, as there is usually very little left over once a firm has paid its debts.

 http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/bankruptpublicfirm.asp

There are different types of bankruptcies (in US Chapter 7, Chapter 11, 13 etc., etc.) under Chapter 7, a debtor surrenders his non-exempt property, under Chapter 13 he retains it.  It's not trivial stuff, and "bankruptcy" is just a catch-all term.  Anyhow, no one filed for bankruptcy AFAIK.

This presupposes actual shares, these shares don't represent partial ownership of Neo, but "shares of the profit.'  This makes bankruptcy the worst-case scenario for Neo shareholders -- they are explicitly not entitled to any post-liquidation residual value.

[thekekk]

I'm not an expert either, but here's a start:

Upon bankruptcy, a firm will be required to sell all of its assets and pay off all debts. The usual order of debt repayment, in terms of the lender, will be the government, financial institutions, other creditors (i.e. suppliers and utility companies), bondholders, preferred shareholders and, finally, common shareholders. The common shareholders are last because they have a residual claim on the assets in the firm and are a tier below the preferred stock classification. Common shareholders often receive nothing at all, as there is usually very little left over once a firm has paid its debts.

 http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/bankruptpublicfirm.asp

There are different types of bankruptcies (in US Chapter 7, Chapter 11, 13 etc., etc.) under Chapter 7, a debtor surrenders his non-exempt property, under Chapter 13 he retains it.  It's not trivial stuff, and "bankruptcy" is just a catch-all term.  Anyhow, no one filed for bankruptcy AFAIK.

This presupposes actual shares, these shares don't represent partial ownership of Neo, but "shares of the profit.'  This makes bankruptcy the worst-case scenario for Neo shareholders -- they are explicitly not entitled to any post-liquidation residual value.

We call it winding-up here.

But my question to you is how did you knew that Danny fled Cyprus for his safety?
and you kept posting here that he fled..
Are you involved with the threads that Danny received?

[Lohoris]

I'm not an expert either, but here's a start:

Upon bankruptcy, a firm will be required to sell all of its assets and pay off all debts. The usual order of debt repayment, in terms of the lender, will be the government, financial institutions, other creditors (i.e. suppliers and utility companies), bondholders, preferred shareholders and, finally, common shareholders. The common shareholders are last because they have a residual claim on the assets in the firm and are a tier below the preferred stock classification. Common shareholders often receive nothing at all, as there is usually very little left over once a firm has paid its debts.

 http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/bankruptpublicfirm.asp

There are different types of bankruptcies (in US Chapter 7, Chapter 11, 13 etc., etc.) under Chapter 7, a debtor surrenders his non-exempt property, under Chapter 13 he retains it.  It's not trivial stuff, and "bankruptcy" is just a catch-all term.  Anyhow, no one filed for bankruptcy AFAIK.

This is much clearer and makes sense and sounds reasonable – the previous SEC quote still makes no sense, but I guess we can live with it.

This presupposes actual shares, these shares don't represent partial ownership of Neo, but "shares of the profit.'  This makes bankruptcy the worst-case scenario for Neo shareholders -- they are explicitly not entitled to any post-liquidation residual value.

Correct observation, which basically is why you should never buy profit-share only (a mistake I did once).

[NotLambchop]

...
But my question to you is how did you knew that Danny fled Cyprus for his safety?
and you kept posting here that he fled..
Are you involved with the threads that Danny received?

I didn't know that Danny fled Cyprus, and still don't think he has fled for his personal safety or for the safety of his daughter.  Not sure what you're saying.
And no, I had no reason to threaten Danny and thus did not.  I'm answering this with the assumption that this is a question rather than an accusation, since I never deny absurd accusations.

[thekekk]

ooops got you!! porky answering for NotLambchop nice work lad keep it up shill to late to delete