Topic: BMF/NYAN Proposed Auction Post (See Post #29) (Read 2550 times)

Ugh.  Lousy situation.  My opinions...

If there are dividends that have been deferred because of the chaos left in the wake of GLBSE's closure, or if new dividends come in before the asset transfer, those dividends are owned by the company (shareholders), not by the winner of the auction.  Effort should be made to secure those payments prior to the auction.  If this isn't possible and the dividends can only be paid to the winning bidder, I don't see what else can be done but to note it with the asset and let the potential buyers bid accordingly.

In the case of a debt repayment or a share buyout/buyback, it would depend a bit.  In the real world, there would be a court, and the court would not allow such an attempt unless the price met or exceeded the auction price (which would mean a temporary injunction, etc, etc).  In this case, I doubt that anyone has the power to place such a hold on things.  To the extent possible, usagi should consider those to be bids like all others, when he has the ability to refuse them.  Since he usually won't be able to refuse, not much can be done except add a clause to the auction agreement that he may need to involuntarily cancel some items.

P.S.  Glad to see that this is winding down nicely.

It's buyer's risk. In some cases I am being denied a claim that I have on record. So I've asked Nefario for help. In that case the claim is denied then the transfer of title is only theoretical, and it is up to the buyer to track down and enforce his or her ownership.

Debt will be sold as a single unit. I.E. hashking owes us say 550 coins; it's 550 or nothing.

Couple of minor issues for clarification:

1.  In the case of debts, are you accepting bids for part of the debt?  Would seem to me that would be tricky to actually handle - but either way it needs clarification (would assume people would bid for X BTC-worth of debt - but what is minimum size of X?).  I'd recommend selling debts in their entirety as likelihood anyone would be able to negotiate settlement on a small portion of it has to be tiny.

2.  What's the situation if someone bids on some shares then, before auction ends, the asset-issuer sends full/partial payment to you?  Potentially someone could end up with bids on shares that no longer have any value (if full settlement was paid).  Obviously regular weekly/monthly dividends can be ignored - but bids made on the basis that the share value includes all dividends since GLBSE vanished should be cancellable if payment in respect of them is made to you AFTER the bid was placed.  Other alternative would be to include all payments received since start of auction into the lot (applied as a discount when settling).  In the latter case, obviously if you received payments exceeding the bids then no sale would take place.

3.  Could you somehow indicate which assets the issuer has confirmed you have ownership of.  Asking particularly in respect of ASICMINER (which I'll bid on) as I know friedcat hasn't confirmed everyone's holdings yet (mine haven't been confirmed).  What's the scenario if an asset issuer subsequently denies that you owned specific shares that were auctioned?  If disclosure is made that an asset issuer hasn't confirmed your ownership of specific shares then I'd have no problem with it being buyer's risk - but obviously that requires you to identify which have been confirmed and which haven't.

Thanks. I'm going to post it tomorrow. I just wanted to let it sit out for a couple of days to see if there would be any objections, any comments, if I made any typos or anything. I'll be removing a couple of assets which we've sold, like GMVT-BOT, but besides that it looks like the main gist of it is acceptable.

Is this still going ahead? I am very interested in bidding.

No I did get this in e-mail but I forgot to update. Thanks for the reminder. Looks like it was a good suggestion to post here for comments first :>

That would be the payment usagi received other week and couldn't work out what it was for.

GMVT-BOT has already liquidated and paid 0.1 BTC per share.

Comments? This will go live sometime this week if there are no concerns.

One last thing - for Lots that aren't listed on Exchanges it would probably greatly help you get most value if the asset issuer/debtor were to confirm that they will honour the transfer of assets/rights upon conclusion of the auction.

Options for where to put it would be:

1.  Here - where the people most likely to bid are.
2.  Auctions forum - where people can't edit or delete bids after making them.

Would suggest putting it in the auctions section but with a thread here - as the contents are clearly relevant to this section of the forum.

You MAY want to require a 10% refundable (if overbid) deposit from unknowns placing bids.

Would suggest putting everything in one thread -  and having clear rules on how to bid.

So your listing would have the various assets for sale - e.g. :

LOT 1 (BINGOM) : 100 shares of BingoMining split into 10 bundles of 10 shares (listed on exchange A).
LOT 2 (SCAMMERX) : 50 BTC debt owed by scammer X - whole debt is 1 bundle.
LOT 3 (LOTTOM) : 50 shares of LottoMining split into 2 bundles of 25 shares (not listed on any exchange).

Then my bids may be:

LOT 1 (BINGOM) : 2 bundles at 1.1 BTC, 3 bundles at 0.8 BTC, 5 bundles at 0.1 BTC
LOT 3 (LOTTOM) : 1 bundle at 0.6 BTC

By having a tag by each lot number and requiring the lot number AND tag to be listed it prevents any claims of misunderstanding what was being bid on later.

Other general guidelines:

1.  Have sniper period - so if you were ending auction at midday next Sunday, definition ofend date would be : "Bidding on each Lot will finish at the later of 12:00PM (midday) 13th January 2013 and 6 hours after the last valid bid on the Lot."  Having an anti-sniper period deters last-minute bidding (impossible to snipe).

2.  Make explicit that if the bids for any lots are lower than market Bids at end of auction then you will sell into market.  Absolutely NO private offers though - as that encourages people to try to buy in private, removing transparency and also removing competition resulting in lower results.

3.  So long as each bundle has a value around 1 BTC or higher, you can just set a minimum bid of 0.1 BTC and incrememnts of 0.1 BTC.  You may lose out on fractions somewhere that someone would have paid 0.21 to out bid 0.2 - but it'll be more than made up for by the occasions they actually outbid (and win) with 0.3 rather than 0.21.  Plus it means less bids.

4.  Encourage people to put ALL their bids in a single post - then quote it with increases when they add more bids (avoids issues like if someone in one post bids 0.3 on 2 blocks of LOT 1, thgen bids 0.4 on 3 blocks of LOT 1 in a second post - have they bid on 3 blocks or 5?)".

5.  Absolutely no removal of bids to be allowed.  If someone bids 0.3 for 2 blocks of LOT 1 they can't then bit 0.5 for 1 block and drop the bid on the 2nd block.

6.  Allow a short time-scale for correction of obvious typos - so if someone accidentally bids 12 BTC instead of 1.2 they get say 10 minutes to fix it in (quoting original, stating it was typo and correcting it).  Any attempts to correct after that would be a bid cancellation against the auction rules and result in all of their bids on everything being ignored.

Remember if you do it in the auction section YOU can't edit the OP after posting (nothing can be edited there) - so get it right first (e.g. post draft in here, wait for coments and correct it before posting it there).

That sounds like a good idea actually. Where should I put the auction? It seems like it might be possible to put it in it's own thread here in the Securities forum. I'd be interested in starting this process asap.

I'm not sure that listing BMF would actually solve much - the problem at root is the lack of liquidity in most assets.  Establishing a market price for BMF wouldn't do anything about that. 

As BMF is closing its value is the total value of its assets - nothing more or less.  Paying out based on a market price for BMF would actually made the situation worse - as if the market happened to value BMF above the value of its assets and you started distributing assets you'd run out of assets with BMF shares left that had received nothing.

They key issue is to establish the value of the assets BMF holds.  Problem is you can't do that on market due to illiquidity (plus some assets aren't even tradable).  Then once you've established value of the assets you can in theory give out assets instead of cash - but you then run into the problem that some investors may believe you've over-valued the assets you try to give them.

I believe there is a solution - which satisfies the main criteria:

1.  Transparent.
2.  No investor gets assets at above the price they value it at.

Weakness of it is that assets may not realise their true value - but that's unavoidable when closing down: there's no way to get full value for all assets AND do it quickly AND make sure no investor gets something they believe is overvalued and worth less than it's been given in lieu of.

Here's my proposal - maybe some tinkering around with it would improve it.

Sell ALL assets by public auction. Make an estimate of their ball-park value and split them into blocks worth around 1 BTC (only the order of magnitude matters) - much less and it's too much hassle, much more and you lose potential bidders.  People bid on blocks - so if you have 100 shares of BingoMining and you think they're worth around .1 BTC each then you'd sell them as 10 blocks of 10 shares.

Set a fairly long date for the auctions - like a week - with a decent anti-sniper clause (like 6 hours extension from last bid) and bids to be in increments of 0.1 BTC/block.  Top bidders win the blocks - obviously investors can bid and then will be effectively buying the shares with the proceeds from their final dividends.  One caveat on it - at end of auction if any of the assets can be sold on market for more than bids that would otherwise win then you sell them on market.

You can even sell off totally illiquid stuff like OBSI shares and Matthew debt - just instead of doing the transfer on an exchange you'd exchange GPG-signed messages assigning them all rights.

You should get more buyers in an auction than on a site - people don't have to sign up to bid and also don't have to tie up cash in bids waiting for a seller (one of the reasons why liquidity is so poor).

I really believe setting market-value for BMF is a red-herring - it seems like a good idea until you get down to the detail.  In principle you can't go giving investors shares unless they agree with your valuation of them.  If you agree on valuation then you don't need to know a value for BMF - just sell them the shares at the agreed price and they'll get their cash back in the final dividends (but I recommend AGAINST this as it's not transparent).

Public auction of assets is a commonly-used method in liquidation in RL - provided all investors know about it and are allowed to bid they have no real cause to complain things were sold under-priced.  If you trust specific investors not to default then you could, in theory, agree that their payment for assets they bid on can be deferred until after you've made partial settlement by dividend - so they can pay out of the first tranche of proceeds from BMF liquidation rather than having to find extra cash short-term.  That last point would achieve a similar end to giving assets in return for BMF shares - but with more transparency, explicit agreement on value and competition to ensure best price practical was achieved.

Hello everyone. Thanks for letting us list burnside, and Deprived that was an excellent idea about the shares but there appears a problem on the horizon.

I have 3 weeks left to liquidate dozens of different assets and pay out dividends. After talking with Juan and a few other shareholders, they have raised the issue that they don't think this plan is going to work. The long and short of it is there's not going to be enough time. I could wrap things up a little more quickly if I could establish market value for BMF and then trade chunks of assets for shares of BMF. But I can't, since BMF can't trade, and only having three weeks left means I need to liquidate for below fair value. Every day someone from GLBSE lists somewhere, we get more and more money back in claims. We just claimed all our RSM shares for example. But can I sell them for a decent price in 3 weeks? I don't know.

Here's the basic problem: "Usagi, work faster!" is not an option. It is starting to be less about me chasing down people and more about the market. Say we have 10,000 shares of BINGOMINING. We either sell them today at 0.003, or we wait a week and sell at 0.0035, or we wait a month and sell it at 0.004. In this example we can't sell it at 0.004 today, because of the illiquid market. And we don't have a month. And, every day I don't sell the problem gets worse because we have a shorter time remaining until delisting day. Obviously on delisting day everything we hold goes to nearly zero as I would be forced to sell it and pay out. I now have hundreds of BTC in assets on BTC-TC and bitfunder like that, which we have on bitfunder or btc-tc and I feel really bad about being forced to liquidate in this fashion. It's not helping investors to punish me when I am not doing anything untrustworthy winding down my assets.

What's worse is that there's always going to be a wave of selling when an asset goes up as many people want out and to have time to rethink what they're doing. So selling at this time is hugely damaging for my shareholders.

So, advice please. I'm thinking that maybe it would be possible to go back to vote and try to get listed at the end of january. The stipulation would be that the companies wind down operations -- we buy back shares and cancel shares on a regular basis.

To the people who voted us down originally, or really anyone in the community, does this sound fair? Any advice?

burnside:

Sounds a decent plan.  Only thing you probably should do is create the assets with exactly the number of shares due to be allocated - that prevents unsold shares being transferred and becoming outstanding shares that dilute dividends or otherwise confuse the issue.  Preventing issue of new paper is the key restriction.  Assume this is just basically a case of setting all the assets to having trade permanently frozen.  No need to worry about things like forced recalls at a tiny price - as usagi wouldn't be listing in the first place if he was intending to just steal all the funds.

I assume investors will be able to do private trades via transfer - don't see any problems with that and its necessary to consolidate from temporary accounts anyway.

Usagi: no need to get investors to make accounts, they'll get ones made for them during import - then they can keep those or make new ones to transfer to if they prefer.

Thank you very much. These restrictions are fine and I'll agree to any other restrictions as needed.

The complete list of assets is:
BMF
CPA
NYAN
NYAN.A
NYAN.B
NYAN.C
YARR

Take your time, I'll send out letters to all the shareholders letting them know to sign up to BTCT or confirm an address for liquidation.

Hey all, don't have a lot of time to post.  Busy time of the year and all. 

I have decided to help Usagi wind things down.  We'll be re-creating all of his assets on BTC-TC.  They will all bypass the moderation stage and go straight to active, HOWEVER... they will not be trade-able on the open market.

Usagi will be able to issue dividends, execute buyouts, trade shares of his assets for shares of other assets.  But there will be no open market trading unless by some miracle he passes the usual moderation process.

I believe this to be in the best interest of everyone involved.  Please let me know if there is something I'm missing.  (eg, some way he could take advantage of this situation?)

It will definitely take us a few days to get everything setup.  Don't expect progress until after Christmas. 

Cheers.

That's what I just said. But the last thing I will ever do is give the satisfaction of just walking away. I am going to do what I always was going to do -- pay out on all the claims. No matter what. That's something that no matter how many times people say I won't do, I will do. Because in the end, I am not a scammer, and I was treated unfairly. That will come out. You will see.

what the ....

Usagi, you might as well as want to just click 'Log out' on bitcointalk and set sails.

huh? Who are you quoting? Threads crossed?

A victim has come forward. Which proves I am a scammer. I will do my best to fix his complaint but Imight not be able to. But this is what I say:


I am sorry. I said I was going to add value by marking to model. this is why i didn't mark down BAKEWELL for example. I belived in BAKEWELL, for example. I belived it was worth the IPO price even though bulk buyers who got 10% off sold down at 95% of IPO.

I WAS WRONG. I am very sorry and I will process your claim and make sure you get a little extra for your shares, I have a complete list of holders and I have bought about 50 or 100 btc extra to distribute. I just want shateholders to be happy.


Thank you. Although I am sorry I do not know what you mean. CPA invested 500 bitcoins with Patrick Harnett, 500 with Hashking, and 500 with Imsaguy. No one trusted us so I turned to the community and invested with the biggest deposit takers t the time. I fucked up. It was my fault. I just wasn't good enough to do what was supposed to be done. So I can't tell you what I should have done. I just sholdn't have done it. And as soon as I make reparations to you, and ALL shareholders equally, I will go away. Forever. I am sorry. Please believe me Even if I can't list on BTCT.CO anyways.

There's no harm in it being traded provided a list of assets it holds is published.  Other key is to clear market orders each time a chunk od realised assets is distributed via dividend - that way people can trade based on current asset list, knowing their bids wont get filled right after a payment is made and they're no longer reasonable.  I explained the process to do it in the other thread.  Yeah - having a cut-off date would make sense - i.e. any assets unable to be sold at fair price before date X are then sold by public auction with proceeds distributed as final dividend.

So long as process is clear and current asset list transparent, trading is beneficial to all - those who need cash fast (sellers) those who want short to mid-term profit (buyers), the exchange (trade fees) and those trading betting they can value more accurately than the rest (my fund and others).

I'm sending you a PM now at depived's advice.

I was thinking.  If you really are just trying to wind things down, we could do a very limited time listing or something.  We'd need to see a rock solid plan up front and set a pre-determined termination date on the asset.  I have the ability to lock assets against trading, so the asset would never trade.  You'd just use it as 'tokens' to allow people to:

1) claim their shares with you
2) trade those shares with you for shares in other assets on the exchange

Does that make sense?

Cheers.

Check the other thread - I've explained there how to do the close-down.

You'll get moderator approval over a few days I expect - it always takes time.

Please help me. Your accusations against me, for months, have been unproven, even as dozens of others have received scammer tags. People who deserved it. Not like me. Please, someone help me. I have hundreds of shareholders to work thru. Hundreds of holdings. I can't do it without help.

And i can't even list on one of the refugee excghanges because of what you've said, people think I am a scammer, the "scammer without a scammer tag", and I can't even use one of the refugee exchanges to process claims.


Please someone help me. All I ever wanted to do was the right thing but even now I can't even list to process claims. Someone threatened Ukyo and got me delisted from Bitfunder. I want to kill myself but I can't.


Whatever, as long as the shareholders are happy. I will do anyting just to make the shareholders happy.

I apologize.

It's possible that that may not have been entirely helpful.

...on the other hand Rigel VIII babes are HOT and very helpful.

...or was that Rigel VII babes that are HOT and Rigel VIII that just has a lot of doggies that poop too much and chew up stockings? Whatev.

Look asshole usagi, you managed to start another thread were you are dragging my name to to your fkn drama. Do you really think this will help you restoring your credibility?
Oliver, you are grown man (in your 40'is) but you act like hysterical teenage girl, who got her first pimple. Get a fkn grip!
 
So, now you are freaking out like a damsel in stress:


Not too long ago you where whining like a little girl who just soiled her undies, while you had to work trough shareholders list:  

If you need help, ask! There is a diminishing number of people who still have any respect left for you and they can probably help. Just ask and stop whining!
For frack sake, regardless of all that shit you have thrown at me, even I can help you clear up this BS. All you have to do is apologise for all the baseless lies about me and others, delete your stupid accusations and we can move on.
You petty little fuck, act like a man!

PS! Happy holidays to ya'll,  from the edge of the world!

Quoting for posterity.

It is btw actually not the trolls who win, but everyone. The BTCTalk forums, the bitcoin community as a whole, the bitcoin economy, also little orphan girls who are eagerly awaiting a pair of socks for Christmas, those poor little doggies that will be thrown out in February when people realize they poop everywhere and the Glo'kron people from Rigel VIII. Everyone.

Fine I will do that.

but beyond that I am done.

I give up. The trolls win. I GIVE UP.

Quite - I'd fully support listing just to help expedite closing down (and allow trading whilst the process was ongoing) and made that plain in my first post.  Rest of my posts are trying to explain WHY it should close down anyway - but seems like usagi doesn't actually want to close down (despite having taken some of the assets already in part settlement of his own/CPA's shares).

If you're attempting to project an aura of stability, the expletives and drama are not helping the situation...quite the opposite really in MO. I know very little about what you guys are talking about and I don't particularly feel like wading through pages of he said vs he said. If you just want to utilize BTC-TC to close down a fund, then simply state as such in the contract in very simple terms. I doubt there are many LTC-Global moderators that wish to attempt to block your efforts to return investor funds regardless of how they feel about you personally.

Yeah okay whatever man I give up. completely and totally. please see the post i'm about to make about my final public statement regarding nyan/bmf/etc claims. I just totally and utterly and completely GIVE UP.

I haven't voted on your asset - at present I don't hold 10 LTC-Global shares TO vote (I trade - not invest).  I've had no discussion with anyone is regards to your listing and have no idea who has voted no (though I can think of a few moderators who will almost certainly vote NO on anything of yours whatever is in the contract).  I can guess who voted No, made comments then changed vote when you changed contract - if it's who I guess then comments wouldn't have been anonymous.

Just had a quick look over the new contract - it's definitely had changes made that address many of the issues I had with the old version.  There's still nothing in there about how the fund is valued and liquidity.  As a fund it should offer liquidity (i.e. a bidwall investors can sell into) at some reasonable fee below NAV/U - obviously with a limit on how much can be bought back (e.g. 5% of outstanding units per day or 5% per week or whatever).  That's how funds work - they offer liquid investment with a variable value (shares don't offer the liquidity, bonds shouldn't have the variable value).

There's also the issue of BTC.CO specific rules on not owning shares in other assets run by same issuer etc (though I guess from memory you may be able to use the loophole that your other assets aren't listed on BTC.CO).  And you may want to check BTC.CO's restrictions on long-term investment vehicles (such as BMF) being barred from investing in other assets that also hold investments long-term.

My last but one concern is that in the past you've shown a belief that you can change the contract of things like funds and bonds simply by owning a majority of them - and have used your own cross-ownership between your various assets to make such changes, without offering a 100% face value exit for anyone disagreeing (a fund/bond shouldn't really have a contract change at all without a full buy-back - but an offer to buyback at full value seems reasonable).  I'm concerned that if you continue you'll vote through whatever changes you like and anyone currently invested who wants out won't be able to get out with cash at full value.

And my final concern is that not long back you were taking cash from sales of BMF's hardware as part payment for CPA's shares of BMF.  Rather obviously that cash would need to be returned if you're doing anything other than closing down - your only justification for doing it at all was that everyone else would be paid out too.  If BMF isn't closing then its most valuable asset (BTC) obviously shouldn't be used to buy out yourself whilst everyone else has to wait a month just to find out whether the company's even closing.

I still think a liquidation and pay out all in BTC would be ideal (or in assets IF some investors would prefer them) then restart afresh if you want to.  That guarantees noone is locked in - and also avoids any ponzi-like behaviour where new units are sold to buy out old ones with the underlieing assets being illiquid/non-valuable/over-valued.

On the insurance thing, no - you never explained the fundamental basis of my allegation: that you acted against the interest of BMF's investors due to a conflict of interest caused by you representing both parties in the contract.  At no stage have you explained how it helped BMF investors to pay for insurance which would then be accelerated (causing them a net loss) if they became entitled to claim on it.  If their NAV never fell they'd pay 520 premiums for nothing.  When, as was the case, their NAV tanked they got zero back (in fact lost 20 or BTC from memory).  Which post explains how that contract (and your decision to accelerate) made sense for BMF?  The contract COULD have made sense for BMF without the acceleration - with acceleration it gives less than zero benefit to BMF (a loss of BTC) in all scenarios.  So no - I won't be admitting I'm wrong as I'm not wrong.  You're still not seeing the difference between "The contract allows me to do X" and "Doing X is in the interest of the investors I represent": To do X (when acting on BMF's behalf) you need to both be entitled to do it AND it needs to be in BMF's interest - the latter is where you went wrong in that particular instance.

Please see clause #5. I've provided a liquidation clause for all shareholders. I have sent letters to all NYAN.A shareholders specifically advising them of this, and their ability to claim shares on Bitfunder should they wish to go that route as well.

Although now Ukyo seems to be giving me trouble on that end now. Apparently someone has threatened him and as a result he has delisted me from Bitfunder (see https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitfunder-limited-launch-offer-to-orphaned-glbse-assets-shareholders-130754). It appears I'm totally fucked. Thanks Deprived. You and the other trolls utterly destroyed me. You destroyed my soul. It is now at the point I am probably going to walk away from this. I can't take this anymore. I am going to try and offload the work to the investors themselves. I am not going to spend 100 to 200 hours working through this shit. The community isn't going to support me, so I'm done. You fucking destroyed me. This is the power of words. Your words.


On the advice of one voter I completely reworked the contract on BTCT. I then received one upvote. I would like to think I addressed his concerns and he kept his promise of voting yes. I am open to any suggestions. Please don't downvote me because of trolls. it's not fair. I'm open to any suggestions on how we can work through this. Then again I might as well fucking die.


You have had clear rebuttals from me in the form of explanations that we accelerated the contract, as allowed by the contract. That was the entire fuckinf point of publishing it. So people could see what we were doing. You didn't get it and you fucked me up royally. Augustacroppo agreed as did others. and this is all on record as the most recent posts (page 20/21) of the scam accusation thread against me. Can you please go read that, and post a response? Because it looks like you were wrong. If you can apologize or at least say you were wrong it would go a long way towards people realizing that I am just trying to do the right thing here. What you have said is so damaging to me because people here, they think that people are guilty until proven innocent...

Then again by this point who fucking cares anyway.


I had reworked the contract. If those comments were yours and the new contract that I made has been deleted because it received too many downvotes from other people I would be seriously upset. If you had voted yes, and if I had been able to vote with my own 13 shares, or even not but could swing the other guy who thought I was a scammer, maybe this could have been salvaged. I seriously want to kill myself for the shit you caused me. But I feel, deep down, I'm a little stronger than that. Just a little.

If the asset is only going to be used to close down the fund and not continue operations then I'd strongly urge moderators to vote YES.  I don't hold a very opinion of usagi but am 100% in favour of anything which would expedite the return of funds to investors.

If the fund intends to continue (listed on BTC.CO) then there's some pretty basic areas of the contract which would need clarification - e.g. liquidity (it's listed as a fund - so should be committing to maintaining bids for those wanting to sell out), how often reports will be made and dividends paid, how profit is calculated (from IPO price? from last high-water mark? profit only in trading period?  profit based on NAV, market value or just calling all revenue profit?) + various others.  It would also need to come into compliance with BTC.CO's rules on things like not holding other assets managed by same issuer, not investing in other long-term investment-holding companies etc. 

Basically the prospectus needs a lot less "I'm a good manager" and a lot more "This is how things will be done".  But if you're just going to close it down then contract should be replaced with the one actually in force - with a statement that the fund is being closed down, no new units will be issued etc.  I'd hope moderators would then vote yes to unlock it.

I'm not going to go into the various allegations against you other than to say, as my name was specifically raised, that I've put forward clear evidence of one instance (the insurance that wasn't honoured) which people can find the details of elsewhere but will nowhere find a convincing or credible rebuttal from you.

My comments above about the contract needing clarification refer to the version of the contract which was up last night - it now appears to have been deleted.

For the latest news...


Fast Forward to Post #29