This one is much more interesting: https://www.mtgox.com/img/pdf/20141126_announcement.pdf

http://youtu.be/otvYeCwQO8s


Just found it   we got Goxed video

at least now kobayashi informed us will take legal action against Mark Karpeles and Tibanne ....
 

I'm lost on this one also.

Let's say for the sake of argument he had no malintent and really did lose all those coins. In that case he was at least extremely (if not criminally) negligent and you should bring him before a civil court and get some compensation.

He did get rich by operating the exchange, why should you settle for a loss?

updates on www.mtgoxprotest.com and Kolin Burges

Thanks Oliver for the updates !

True enough--Willy-bot, Markus-bot, TIBANNE_LIMITED_HK THK--are all indications of some abuse having occurred there at Mt. Gox, yet still you see absolutely zero risk in erasing/reformatting the original Mt. Gox server hard drives, as the the trustee indicates he plans to have done before they are transferred to Kraken?  Then with these proceedings, how sure can we be that the fox has not been guarding the hen house?

My only consolation in the matter is that it's unlikely to restore something from modern hard disks, if it has been already physically overwritten. Data which was just logical deleted should endure also on the images (if they were made professionally). So, there is some hope. Nevertheless, it's a shame that they delete the data at such an early stage. A bad sign even if it not cause any further damage.

Well, here is your first surprise.  It is NOT the creditors who decide the way claims are to be computed and how the spoils are returned.  There are laws and precedents; the trustee will propose suitable formulas and methods to the judge, and then the judge will decide.  I repeat, in case I was not suffirciently clear: the judge decides how the liquidation will happen, within the limits of laws and precedents, not the creditors.

The creditors may (politely and humbly) offer their preferences and suggestions to the trustee, but the trustee is not required to pay attention to them: the only person he must satisfy is the judge.  Yes, the trustee may, and probably will, disappoint the creditors (especially if the creditors insist in believing that they can tell him what to do).  He  will not "drown in lawsuits and counter-measures", because his work will be approved by the judge, step by step, until the funds are distributed -- and you cannot sue a judge just because you did not like his decisions.  

Understand that the trustee is not a servant of the creditors; he is an "employee" of the judge, and was charged by the judge with the task of gathering the assets and claims, and drawing a distribution plan that will satisfy the judge.

That is why you should ASK your lawyer what the laws say about such liquidations, and ASK the trustee what he plans to do.  ASK, and after that maybe SUGGEST; not TELL.  And you had better let a lawyer write up your suggestions, if you want the trustee and the judge to pay attention to them.  

(You don't tell the surgeon how he should proceed with your liver transplant.  If you really think you must, you should tell your concerns to your doctor, and let him talk to the surgeon, in the proper terms.)


And that is one of the reasons that may force the truestee to ignore the account balances, and use some other formula to compute the amount owed to each client.

Maybe, but there have been so many bankruptcies since WWII that surely there are cases that are similar enough to establish a precedent.  A lawyer would know whether there are precedents that can be used to support your preferred viewpoint, whatever it is.

It is totally useless to discuss what you or I think would be the "right" way to do it without knowing the laws and precedents.


I don't understand what you are trying to say.  By their own books, MtGOX owed their clients more than 800'000 BTC, worth more than 500 million USD then, more than 300 million USD today; not counting the USD balances.  Even after "finding" those 220'000 BTC, it still had only 1/4 of the bitcoins and money that it owed, and had no hope of earning enough fees in a reasonable time to cover the difference.  That is what "insolvent" means.  

When a company is insolvent, by definition it is unable to pay all its creditors.  If the concept of bankruptcy did not exist, when news get out that a company is insolvent, every creditor would sue it in order to get his money; the first ones may succeed, many would go empty-handed.  The purpose of the bankruptcy laws is, first, to prevent that flood of separate lawsuits; then, let an impartial judge evaluate whether there is any chance of the company becoming solvent again in a reasonable time; and, if not, guarantee that the remaining assets are distributed to the creditors as fairly as possible.


There seems to be a persistent misunderstanding.  The trustee is not the new manager of MtGOX, who is supposed to answer to the clients and try to make their wishes.  MtGOX is no more, there is only a messy pile of assets that the court must try to untangle and dispose according to the law.  The trustee works for the judge, not for the former clients, and is obliged to answer to him only.  

Do you think the trustee would be able to auction the Gox coins like it is done for the SR coins at the moment? Who would like to buy or exchange these Gox coins of the "former clients"? Coins with a big red flag on it.
The trustee can maybe sell at a ridiculous discount and the buyers should remain anonymous forever. In the end everyone would lose. What would be the point of it all? I think that the matter is handled much more down-to-earth. Our legal system is much more flexible and no religion.

The Madoff ponzi was much bigger than MtGOX: 64 billion US$. WorldCom, Enron, Lehmann Bros, Washington Mutual, were many times bigger than MtGOX, and much more complicated, with dozens of subsidiaries, branches, etc.. Even the Brazilian oil company OGX and the Brazilian MLM scam TelexFree were much bigger.

In Japan there was, for example, memory manufacturer Elpida (5.5 billion $) and Japan Airlines (at least 10 billion $).  (JAL was one case when the bankruptcy did not end in liquidation: the government bailed it out in part, and put pressure on creditors to suspend their demands and give it a chance, so it was back in normal operation after 2 years.)


You cannot consider only the pluses and ignore the minuses.  When it closed, MtGOX did not have 220'000 BTC, it had minus 660'000 BTC.

Sunlot wanted to do just that: convince the Japanese court to stop the liquidation and sell them all the MtGOX assets -- including the 220'000 BTC -- for 1 BTC, but without the 660'000 BTC debt to their clients.  That would have been very sweet idned -- for Sunlot, not at all for the clients.

Those 220'000 coins indeed are a relatively uncomplicated part of the assets (although they may have to be auctioned; if not, returning them as BTC may be a big legal and accounting headache).  The messy parts include the loans of 13 million dollars to mark and his other companies; the money in various bank accounts; the suspended Coinlab lawsuit; the assets of the US subsidiary (and others perhaps); and understanding what happened to the 660'000 missing coins.


The decision to liquidate the company was totally inevitable given that its obligations were  ~500 M$ more than its assets.  Far from being "fraudulent", the decision to liquidate MtGOX may be the only part of this saga that was totally transparent and undeniably correct under the law...

The purpose of the bankruptcy law is precisely to suspend any creditors' lawsuits already underway, and block any new ones.  It will not prevent more specific lawsuits in the future, civil or criminal, against the people involved -- e.g. for fraudulent management (if Kobayashi does not start some himself).  But the civil lawsuits against the company MtGOX will be aborted, and there will be no more point in starting new ones  -- because even the corpse of MtGOX will have ceased to exist.

By the way, when people say "file for bankruptcy", that is a short for "ask the courts for protection from creditors' lawsuits as specified in the bankruptcy law."

My understanding of what happened in the US courts is limited.  I think (not sure) that several things happened, in some order:

* MtGOX USA filed for bankruptcy protection in the US too, after MtGOX KK did so in Japan.

* An US judge aborted that MtGOX USA bankruptcy process because he concluded that it was best for the Japanese court to handle it too.

* Greene and Lack sued MtGOX in the US.  They claimed to have evidence of wrongdoings by MtGOX managers.

* The court requested Mark to show up to testify in the Greene & Lack case.  Mark was very relctant to do so.

* The Sunlot guys convinced Greene & Lack to withdraw their lawsuit and support Sunlot's plan to stop the liquidation and take over MtGOX.

It must be noted that Sunlot had already promised immunity to Gay-Bouchery and McCaleb, even before starting any investigation.  And they never replied when asked about whether they would extend that coutesy to Mark too.  if we are talkng of cover-ups and evading justice, then...

Also Sunlot never replied when asked whether GB and McC and Mark would get their share of the 220'000 together with (or before) the other clients.  (IIRC, Japanese liquidation law, like the US one, says that management is always last in the queue of creditors, so they should get nothing in this case.)