Does this need to be in writing or will an email suffice?
I notice there's a signature required on the form.
Topic: Bitcoinica liquidator wants to hear from users - page 20. (Read 64418 times)
Here is 1st report from PKF (Liquidator)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2479243/Liquidators%20First%20Report.pdf
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2479243/Liquidators%20First%20Report.pdf
The most interesting thing in that is Ator - a NZ company of which Tihan and Chris Heaslip are directors - being named as a creditor along with Wendon. The report doesn't note whether either Wendon or Ator are exerting a secured or preferential interest (Tihan has previously stated that Wendon would waive it's right to be treated as a secured creditor).
It will be good to see some actual numbers in the second report.
Everyone who hasn't yet filed a claim please note that the cut-off date for doing so has been set at 20 January 2013.
Quote
It's as if they intended to pay owed USD by selling BTCs and that's it.
They've stated both previously and in the report itself that they are seeking legal advice regarding whether they can pay creditors in both dollars and Bitcoins. If they can, then depending on the exact holding at MtGox they're going to have to buy BTC with $ or sell BTC for USD to ensure that unsecured creditors all receive the same proportion of what they're owed regardless of whether they're paid in BTC or USD.
Here is 1st report from PKF (Liquidator)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2479243/Liquidators%20First%20Report.pdf
Edit : Mistake ? They have subtracted owed USD from estimated USD value of owed BTCs ...
It's as if they intended to pay owed USD by selling BTCs and that's it.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2479243/Liquidators%20First%20Report.pdf
Edit : Mistake ? They have subtracted owed USD from estimated USD value of owed BTCs ...
It's as if they intended to pay owed USD by selling BTCs and that's it.
I e-mailed Mr Bhamji at [email protected] with my claim today, answering his questions 1, 2 and 3.
I only had one deposit using mtgox (provided the mtgox code), so I expect my claim should be easy to verify.
I only had one deposit using mtgox (provided the mtgox code), so I expect my claim should be easy to verify.
It would be nice if MtGox would make a public statement about the extent to which they're going to co-operate with the liquidator and if they will do so free of charge. They implied back when the whole Zhou/Chinese relic collector story blew up that they wouldn't release any Bitcoinica funds to anyone except a liquidator/receiver but I'm not sure whether they've made any comments since then or ever mentioned the extent to which they will make their own information available to the liquidator if it's needed to verify user claims.
I e-mailed Mr Bhamji at [email protected] with my claim today, answering his questions 1, 2 and 3.
I only had one deposit using mtgox (provided the mtgox code), so I expect my claim should be easy to verify.
I only had one deposit using mtgox (provided the mtgox code), so I expect my claim should be easy to verify.
Personally I'd to some investigation and take a couple of phone conversations to verify the legitimacy of this. After all, it could be some scheme to lure even more money from users. Ie. "just pay a small fee, and your money will be released soon".
I haven't done any investigation, since I don't have a dog in this fight, and if anyone got insulted from this post, I appologize, I just think one can't be careful enough when dealing with substantional funds and personal information.
I haven't done any investigation, since I don't have a dog in this fight, and if anyone got insulted from this post, I appologize, I just think one can't be careful enough when dealing with substantional funds and personal information.
I can confirm the matter was listed for hearing on 1 November. I checked the NZ High Court list the day before. It's probably worth remembering that it was Patrick who first announced that Bitcoinica had been put into liquidation that day and who the liquidators were, whereas it was Wendon named in the court listing as making the liquidation application. There is literally no reason for Patrick to mislead people about this.
The firm is legitimate but people should absolutely be open about any concerns they have. Many users aren't going to be familiar with insolvency processes, let alone foreign ones so some things about it might just plain not make sense until they seek clarification.
Personally I'd to some investigation and take a couple of phone conversations to verify the legitimacy of this. After all, it could be some scheme to lure even more money from users. Ie. "just pay a small fee, and your money will be released soon".
I haven't done any investigation, since I don't have a dog in this fight, and if anyone got insulted from this post, I appologize, I just think one can't be careful enough when dealing with substantional funds and personal information.
I haven't done any investigation, since I don't have a dog in this fight, and if anyone got insulted from this post, I appologize, I just think one can't be careful enough when dealing with substantional funds and personal information.
How is it that as a private person, you can open a company under a foreign jurisdiction and then claim not to be personally
responsible for lack of jurisdiction once shtf? Seems like sound business to me.
responsible for lack of jurisdiction once shtf? Seems like sound business to me.
Lastly, we are aware of legal proceedings underway in California against the Limited Partnership. The Liquidators have sought to have the Limited Partnership withdrawn from the proceedings on the basis that it is in liquidation. We are concerned that the plaintiff investors may be seeking to better their position ahead of other investors, and we wish to see everyone treated fairly and equally.
This is news to us. We haven't received any communications in this regard and we have no intention of dropping the suit. In fact, we haven't even personally received any contact from the liquidators regarding our claims, which is strange given that we probably make up > 50% of the total money being owed. We await the liquidator's finding as to the responsibilities of the individual Bitcoinica directors, investors, founders. If the liquidators wish to help our case against the other defendants, we might be willing to drop Bitcoinica from the suit.
And the plot thickens....
Not to argue with your counsel, but it would seem Bitcoinica will be dropped as a matter of course once the liquidators file notice with the court (if they do, of course). This obviously hasn't much to do with the rest of the defendants (although iirc at least one was filing motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction etc).
sub
Sub
sub
There's a Watchlist link for that.
Sorry - it doesn't always work.
sub
Sub
sub
There's a Watchlist link for that.
This is news to us. We haven't received any communications in this regard and we have no intention of dropping the suit. In fact, we haven't even personally received any contact from the liquidators regarding our claims, which is strange given that we probably make up > 50% of the total money being owed. We await the liquidator's finding as to the responsibilities of the individual Bitcoinica directors, investors, founders. If the liquidators wish to help our case against the other defendants, we might be willing to drop Bitcoinica from the suit.
The liquidators have stated that they don't have Bitcoinica's records, which puts them in a peculiar situation regarding attempting to contact alleged creditors. They literally need creditors to contact them at this point, so you guys might want to get your lawyers onto that. I don't think this is the appropriate thread in which to discuss your lawsuit but I'd strongly suggest that you obtain an opinion from a NZ insolvency lawyer regarding the pros and cons of including Bitcoinica in the lawsuit at this point. The liquidator cannot advise you on this point and you need solid legal advice on the implications of trying to cut deals with the liquidator.
Lastly, we are aware of legal proceedings underway in California against the Limited Partnership. The Liquidators have sought to have the Limited Partnership withdrawn from the proceedings on the basis that it is in liquidation. We are concerned that the plaintiff investors may be seeking to better their position ahead of other investors, and we wish to see everyone treated fairly and equally.
This is news to us. We haven't received any communications in this regard and we have no intention of dropping the suit. In fact, we haven't even personally received any contact from the liquidators regarding our claims, which is strange given that we probably make up > 50% of the total money being owed. We await the liquidator's finding as to the responsibilities of the individual Bitcoinica directors, investors, founders. If the liquidators wish to help our case against the other defendants, we might be willing to drop Bitcoinica from the suit.
This is interesting. What the hell is going on here?
~Bruno K~
Just saw this thread today, email sent.
Lastly, we are aware of legal proceedings underway in California against the Limited Partnership. The Liquidators have sought to have the Limited Partnership withdrawn from the proceedings on the basis that it is in liquidation. We are concerned that the plaintiff investors may be seeking to better their position ahead of other investors, and we wish to see everyone treated fairly and equally.
This is news to us. We haven't received any communications in this regard and we have no intention of dropping the suit. In fact, we haven't even personally received any contact from the liquidators regarding our claims, which is strange given that we probably make up > 50% of the total money being owed. We await the liquidator's finding as to the responsibilities of the individual Bitcoinica directors, investors, founders. If the liquidators wish to help our case against the other defendants, we might be willing to drop Bitcoinica from the suit.
sub
Just a quick reminder that it's Saturday afternoon down here so you might not get a response from the liquidator until NZ business hours on Monday.
What happen with open positions? can be claimed?
It was never clear whether bitcoinica attitude about this it was lawful ...
It was never clear whether bitcoinica attitude about this it was lawful ...
Interesting question, I had around 50 coins bought at less than 5USD but since Bitcoinica lost the database this will be impossible to prove.
...
We would also appreciate feedback from investors on whether they would prefer to receive a distribution in the form of Bitcoins (where possible) or whether they would prefer a straightforward cash distribution. We are still seeking to determine what options are available to us at law, and will let investors know in due course.
...
I've lost so much to incompetency, We would also appreciate feedback from investors on whether they would prefer to receive a distribution in the form of Bitcoins (where possible) or whether they would prefer a straightforward cash distribution. We are still seeking to determine what options are available to us at law, and will let investors know in due course.
...
I think you should keep our BTC in an escrow while you sort things out and demand AML details for USD who could become subject to a claw-back.
USD stay in USD, BTC stay in BTC. I really wouldn't want to risk loosing more through your use of BTC exchanges.
Jump to: