Pirate wants to settle with individuals for less. Don't let him do it. - page 3.

payb.tc

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Matthew N. Wright on August 30, 2012, 11:34:23 PM

Quote from: repentance on August 30, 2012, 11:32:33 PM

I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate. I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.

I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness. Undecided

how can he block them?

i don't see how he can stop lenders from telling pirate their own account info.

phantitox

sr. member

Activity: 385

Merit: 250

Quote from: CrazyGuy on August 31, 2012, 12:00:02 AM

Quote from: repentance on August 30, 2012, 11:52:45 PM

Quote from: CrazyGuy on August 30, 2012, 11:48:46 PM

Matthew, since your bet was 100% payout, and some bond holders are settling for less than 100%, haven't you already lost your bet?

Didn't his bet refer to pirate paying people 100%? If people have sold their debt to someone else for less, pirate no longer owes them anything - the full amount is owed to whoever bought their debt.

Regardless of who owns the bond or what price they purchased it for, pirate needs to
pay the full amount to the current bond holder for Matthew to win the bet. if anyone has received a payment less than 100% of the bond's value, Matthew loses the bet. No need to wait until September 9th... I just want to make sure the terms of the bet aren't dynamic in favor of Matthew.

i think if Chaang Noi's doest want to release the info in order to get paid, the fair case is to assume that pirate wants to pay the bonds, no?

CrazyGuy

legendary

Activity: 1973

Merit: 1007

Quote from: repentance on August 30, 2012, 11:52:45 PM

Quote from: CrazyGuy on August 30, 2012, 11:48:46 PM

Matthew, since your bet was 100% payout, and some bond holders are settling for less than 100%, haven't you already lost your bet?

Didn't his bet refer to pirate paying people 100%? If people have sold their debt to someone else for less, pirate no longer owes them anything - the full amount is owed to whoever bought their debt.

Regardless of who owns the bond or what price they purchased it for, pirate needs to pay the full amount to the current bond holder for Matthew to win the bet. if anyone has received a payment less than 100% of the bond's value, Matthew loses the bet. No need to wait until September 9th... I just want to make sure the terms of the bet aren't dynamic in favor of Matthew.

repentance

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: CrazyGuy on August 30, 2012, 11:48:46 PM

Matthew, since your bet was 100% payout, and some bond holders are settling for less than 100%, haven't you already lost your bet?

Didn't his bet refer to pirate paying people 100%? If people have sold their debt to someone else for less, pirate no longer owes them anything - the full amount is owed to whoever bought their debt.

CrazyGuy

legendary

Activity: 1973

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Matthew N. Wright on August 30, 2012, 11:34:23 PM

Quote from: repentance on August 30, 2012, 11:32:33 PM

I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate. I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.

I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness. Undecided

Matthew, since your bet was 100% payout, and some bond holders are settling for less than 100%, haven't you already lost your bet?

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: AsymmetricInformation on August 30, 2012, 11:23:21 PM

Prisoner's Dilemma!

Ants=Doomed

lulz @ post & handle

Matthew N. Wright

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet

Quote from: repentance on August 30, 2012, 11:32:33 PM

I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate. I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.

I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness. Undecided

repentance

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate. I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.

SysRun

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Portland Bitcoin Group Organizer

This is interesting. Where is the alternative explanation from pirateat40?

I just can't make sense of it. Why does pirate want to handle it this way?

AsymmetricInformation

member

Activity: 115

Merit: 10

Quote from: Coincomm on August 30, 2012, 06:34:26 PM

Pirate should deal exclusively with the PPT operators so you, the account holders, get the most money possible.

If he deals with individuals exclusively, he can ignore their pleas one-by-one, like ants. He can make them settle for as low as possible.

Dealing with an antpile is a different story.

Unionize. Stick with your union leaders. Get what you are due.

*salutes Chaang-Noi*

Prisoner's Dilemma!

Ants=Doomed

Matthew N. Wright

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet

in b4 matthew says "Shut up Atlas".

Oops.

Coincomm

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Pirate should deal exclusively with the PPT operators so you, the account holders, get the most money possible.

If he deals with individuals exclusively, he can ignore their pleas one-by-one, like ants. He can make them settle for as low as possible.

Dealing with an antpile is a different story.

Unionize. Stick with your union leaders. Get what you are due.

*salutes Chaang-Noi*

Topic: Pirate wants to settle with individuals for less. Don't let him do it. - page 3. (Read 4620 times)