Thanks!
>So [Mr. Gay-Bouchery] is being given immunity by Sunlot without even issuing a public statement about his role in the collapse? (He was MtGOX's CFO, is this correct?)
His official title is Business Development Manager. He mainly did advertising/pr.
But when did he became aware that the company was insolvent, and what did he do then?
>Thanks for the clarification. However, is the intent to exclude the former management of MtGOX from the asset distribution a mere feeling and vague intention, or is Sunlot commiting to that in writing through a legally binding contract/proposal?
I don't understand the law behind it, but I'm confident that if the audit decides that the former management is at fault (how can't they be) then we can withhold their % of the coins.
This is rather, er, strange. I understand that in bankruptcy proceedings, claims by the management are invariably considered only after all other creditors have been paid,
even if there is no evidence wrongdoing -- because they are "guilty" of the company's failure, at the very least. Moreover, in the case o MtGOX there clearly were many actions by the management that were unfair to the clients, such as allowing them to deposit and trade without warning them of the insolvency situation.
>Again, is Sunlot commiting to [the audit] point in writing, in a legally binding document? Have any of those [auditing] firms been contacted to confirm that they would accept this task? (I am asking because a reputable auditing firm will probably refuse to do an audit of something if it thinks that there isn't sufficient reliable data to support a useful conclusion.)
From the proposal: Caveats and Pre-requisites
1. Under this plan, the Supervisor shall appoint and compensate PwC (or equivalent
alternative agreed by Sunlot, if reasonable terms can not be agreed with PwC) to
provide an audit of customer accounts, customer assets, and provide an
accounting report on how Customer Assets were stolen (“Audit”). Sunlot and
Class Counsel shall oversee the Audit and ensuing report.
I understand this to say "there is no contract with PwC; Sunlot may propose to pay 0.01$ to PwC for the audit, and if PwC does not accept, then Sunlot alone will decide who will do the audit and how it will be done, while the Class Counsel will have to sit and watch."
Anyway, thanks for your answers. Their former clients can have their opinion, but as a mere inhabitant of the same planet, I must say that I am
quite upset at the idea that MtGOX's management may escape impartial investigation, and even be rewarded in the end. That will only encourage them, or others in similar situations, to do the same thing again, to other victims.
