NEO and BEE talk (unmoderated)

[NotLambchop]

How many times have I told you that I have several accounts?  Why is this still a novelty to you?

[velacreations]

[NotLambchop]

Drats!  Discovered *again*.  Oh, what a world! What a world! Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!   

[jimmothy]

How many times have I told you that I have several accounts?  Why is this still a novelty to you?

What are you even doing here?

Do you really have such a boring life that it is more entertaining to constantly troll bitcoin securities forum day after day after day after day?

Do you admit that you are crumbs? He is the only other person in bitcoin history who dedicated so much time to trolling.

If you don't get paid for this shit I feel sorry for you..

[sporket]

... I'm answering this with the assumption that this is a question rather than an accusation, since I never deny absurd accusations.

And don't sell yourself short -- you provide passable entertainment.  I feel satisfied with my rewards -- educating finance enthusiasts while getting some luls in return.
Who knows, if I succeed, backyard investing might become a relatively inexpensive hobby.

[JoTheKhan]

How many times have I told you that I have several accounts?  Why is this still a novelty to you?

What are you even doing here?

Do you really have such a boring life that it is more entertaining to constantly troll bitcoin securities forum day after day after day after day?

Do you admit that you are crumbs? He is the only other person in bitcoin history who dedicated so much time to trolling.

If you don't get paid for this shit I feel sorry for you..

Not invested in this, just a fun thread to read while I study. Anyways, if you see him post a My Little Pony picture then he is crumbs. As that is the only person who post those pictures in this securities section, it's usually the same picture with that pink or yellow or w/e horse too. No need to ask, it's pretty much certain it is crumbs.

[btcapples]

583870/583870   ฿0.00031000   ฿180.9997


Enjoy.

[freedomno1]

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"?

Sorry signed out there Lohi

The investopedia explanation has it mostly correct in terms of liquidation and how that should work aka the priority scale Bondholders Preferred Shares - Common Shares etc.
What I meant is that if the company changes management as was mentioned in Danny's last post and decides to reorganize the company, their is a possibility that new ownership does not acknowledge the previous shareholder capital without a proposed plan for reorganization that includes the shareholders of current neobee shares.
Since Neo Bee Shares are non-voting to my knowledge the shares held have no real power in the decision making process and why Havelock gave it the Q rating in my opinion.
Until Neobee gives out a proposed plan of reorganization we are in the dark on what will happen to the shares now.

We do know if we trust Danny's post that they are not liquid presently and they are looking for new management, and who will write the new contract, aka some agency.
How shares will be handled is uncertain until we see the final copy though.

OP
The whole process will be completed and handled through an agency that specializes in these matters, once the final details are completed, the agency details will be made available to interested parties who wish to purchase 100% of my equity in LMB Subsidiaries Ltd thus taking full control of all subsidiaries. I shall also be providing the new owner full rights over the Bitcoin debts currently owed by BitFunder/WeExchange as I know people are working on a solution to recovering those debts for everyone that has funds stuck there. This process will also write off all directors loans I have made to the company and I shall not receive any financial compensation through this sale process.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/liquidation.asp
Creditors liquidate assets to try and get as much of the money owed to them as possible. They have first priority to whatever is sold off. After creditors are paid, the shareholders get whatever is left with preferred shareholders having preference over common shareholders.

Since Danny is completely liquidating and moving ownership to someone else, the controlling stake will belong to the new owner.

OP
I am working towards having this entire process completed within a short period of time to enable the business to recover, to ensure that those invested do not lose out following this process.

General Bankruptcy Article
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/01/120501.asp

[Darkstone2]

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/liquidation.asp
Creditors liquidate assets to try and get as much of the money owed to them as possible. They have first priority to whatever is sold off. After creditors are paid, the shareholders get whatever is left with preferred shareholders having preference over common shareholders.

Would Angel investors be 'prefered shareholders'?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=289730.0

Private Tranche - 1,100,000 Shares - Sold privately to Angel Investors

Pre-IPVO Offering - 500,000 Shares @ 0.0025 BTC each
(Pre-IPVO Offering, available only to XBOND holders, see next section)

Public Offering - 8,000,000 Shares @ 0.003 BTC each

[btcapples]

Wall gone.

[freedomno1]

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/liquidation.asp
Creditors liquidate assets to try and get as much of the money owed to them as possible. They have first priority to whatever is sold off. After creditors are paid, the shareholders get whatever is left with preferred shareholders having preference over common shareholders.

Would Angel investors be 'prefered shareholders'?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=289730.0

Private Tranche - 1,100,000 Shares - Sold privately to Angel Investors

Pre-IPVO Offering - 500,000 Shares @ 0.0025 BTC each
(Pre-IPVO Offering, available only to XBOND holders, see next section)

Public Offering - 8,000,000 Shares @ 0.003 BTC each

I think they would not be preferred shareholders since they are part of the Private Tranche but are counted towards the Public shares
Not 100% certain myself though although the private tranche has no voting rights either.

LMB Holdings Share Structure
Public investors will hold 9,600,000 LMB Holdings shares (60% of the profits), whilst LMB Subsidiaries Limited (UK) shall hold 6,400,000 shares (40% of the profits), for a total of 16,000,000 LMB Holdings virtual shares, which represent 100% of the global profits of the LMB Subsidiaries Limited (UK).

Voting Rights
Shareholders in LMB Holdings do not have explicit voting rights. Any questions or concerns will be answered within 24 hours through our own investor relations website.

[thekekk]

of course there are no voting rights you cannot just vote if you buy 1 share. In order to vote you need to have high %


The vast majority of shares are ordinary shares which carry a right to one vote per share. There may, however, be different classes of shares which may have no voting rights or restricted rights
However any five or more members, or the holders of not less than 10% of the voting rights can demand a poll

[freedomno1]

However any five or more members, or the holders of not less than 10% of the voting rights can demand a poll

EDIT IN: Implied Rights Do Factor Into This (Aka) State Regulations under UK and Cypriot Laws

No they should all have the same privileges that said LMB Holding Shares have no rights regarding voting procedures unless presented by the board.

Public investors will hold 9,600,000 LMB Holdings shares,  LMB Subsidiaries Limited (UK) shall hold 6,400,000 shares, total of 16,000,000 LMB Holdings virtual shares

Voting Rights
Shareholders in LMB Holdings do not have explicit voting rights.

No idea what the implicit rights are do you know where it says anyone with greater than 10% voting rights can demand a poll?

EDIT IN: Implied Rights Include State Regulations under UK and Cypriot Laws

Not in the main thread
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=289730.0

Although there are dissolution rules

Dissolution
In the event of insolvency, all assets shall be sold and all proceeds remaining after repaying creditors shall be divided evenly and paid to each public share. Depositors are not creditors, and LMB Subsidiaries Limited (UK) will not have access to any depositor funds in the event of dissolution. Deposits shall be recovered by the customer though the external legal representative.

[thekekk]

Companies Law sec321

(2)A provision of a company's articles is void in so far as it would have the effect of making ineffective a demand for a poll on any such question which is made—

(a)by not less than 5 members having the right to vote on the resolution; or

(b)by a member or members representing not less than 10% of the total voting rights of all the members having the right to vote on the resolution (excluding any voting rights attached to any shares in the company held as treasury shares); or

(c)by a member or members holding shares in the company conferring a right to vote on the resolution, being shares on which an aggregate sum has been paid up equal to not less than 10% of the total sum paid up on all the shares conferring that right (excluding shares in the company conferring a right to vote on the resolution which are held as treasury shares).

@freedomno1 Your facts are nowhere near true

[freedomno1]

You do have a point sort of, the thing is I am not sure if the SEC compliance rules apply in virtual securities or if they can be extended towards it sort of an out of jurisdiction issue.
The SEC is an American based legislation and we are dealing with a Bitcoin based system while American investors can turn to the SEC, it is a Cyprus based company so it doesn't really apply here as a universal case.

The reason I linked to an sec document for the Q rating is because that is commonly used terminology for an asset in bankruptcy or restructuring not because it conforms to a regulatory procedure like the one mentioned above.

That said I say sort of because 231 is fairly common worldwide in one forum or another so how it would be applied should be under Cypriot law does make it relevant as it is a real company even if the assets are denominated in Bitcoin.

http://www.olc.gov.cy/olc/olc.nsf/all/E1EAEB38A6DB4505C2257A70002A0BB9/$file/The%20Companies%20Law,%20Cap%20113.pdf?openelement
http://www.paschalides.com/ru/articles/corporate-articles/87-basic-aspects-of-cyprus-company-law.html

@thekekk can you define nowhere near true that is a bit vague we may be on the same page but different approaches, I'm basing it off the Neobee prospectus, your pushing through overlapping rules from American based Security Laws and while commonalities exist they are two entirely different ways to look at it.

[thekekk]

You keep posting US laws that do not apply anywhere
2 companies here one in the UK and one in Cyprus

UK and Cyprus Laws applies.

And based on the exception shareholder/s own 10% can initiate voting.
Is called protection of the minority 

[freedomno1]

You keep posting US laws that do not apply anywhere
2 companies here one in the UK and one in Cyprus

UK and Cyprus Laws applies.

And based on the exception shareholder/s own 10% can initiate voting.
Is called protection of the minority  

So it was just a difference in the approach, in that case I concede your points US law does not apply here and it should be based on UK and Cyprus based laws.

The interpretation from the prospectus rights and the legal rights of security law can be approached from different angles.
I was relying on the prospectus to interpret and not the legal law, that said while I do not believe that was an entirely incorrect approach,  your point is valid concessions to the law of the state aka the UK and Cyrpus are important since these are the implicit rights shareholders have.

Anyways went a bit into legal/investment based stuff thanks for pointing out that State Laws do give large shareholders rights outside of the Neobee Prospectus.

As an aside Havelock put the Q in their shareholdings so that's why I used the American SEC definition and not a UK/Cyprus based one
It is currently trading as NEOBEEQ   
Q Standing For - Bankruptcy proceedings

Regarding US Laws that do not apply anywhere, linking to an overview of corporate bankruptcy based on an investopedia article seems fine to me even it it is American based but feel free to clarify what you meant by US laws not applying since I didn't really reference anything explicitly american besides investopedia and the sec defintion unless you mixed my post with notlambchops explanation of Chapter 7 and Chapter 11.

As a second aside I kind of find it amusing we have more productive discussions here than in the moderated thread lol
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=529946.msg6102905#msg6102905

[KS]

Is there any official+"legal" basis for Havelock to re-list the asset unilaterally? ("legal" because, well...bitcoin...)

Freezing the trading was a good decision, re-listing unilaterlaly with the .Q added is just scammy.

Can't wait for decent people to make a decent exchange...

[jimmothy]

Is there any official+"legal" basis for Havelock to re-list the asset unilaterally? ("legal" because, well...bitcoin...)

Freezing the trading was a good decision, re-listing unilaterlaly with the .Q added is just scammy.

Can't wait for decent people to make a decent exchange...

How is freezing trading a good decision?

And why is allowing people to trade their shares scammy?

Neobee loses 10k btc and 2k in bitfunder and you say havelock is scammy?

Get real.

[sporket]

Freezing trading was a shit decision.

OTOH, since Havelock chose to do so per request of the issuer, it also follows that trading can not be resumed without the issuer's request.

Because intrinsic consistency.

Next they'll say that Danny came back and asked Havelock to invalidate all the trades made after the halt notice.