Quote from: reeses on November 28, 2012, 12:43:10 AM

Quote from: bcpokey on November 27, 2012, 08:44:35 PM

Bankruptcy isn't the "ha-ha" you might think it is. I'm no lawyer, but AFAIK since BFL is an incorporated entity, bankruptcy would fall only on the business. Any salaries to employees/owners, big bonuses for CEO/CTO/CFO/etc. to the tune of whatever they want, and other "operating expenses" reducing their operating capital would be untouched, and by filing Chapter 7, they are not required to repay the full debt owed (meaning everyone gets screwed to a greater or lesser extent). Additionally if they really have VC funding as they said they did, usually a company draws up contracts specifically stating that those folks get "first dibs" on asset liquidation, further reducing what customers would receive.

I'm just sayin'

Incorrect. The fact that the founder/CEO/GM/whatever-he-is has a history of international wire fraud and has changed the definition of his role in the company several times gives the "corporation" the appearance of an entity created solely to obscure his involvement. Bankruptcy will only make piercing the corporate veil easier. All of the directors and/or officers with active involvement in managing the company will most likely have to declare personal bankruptcy to achieve the ends you describe.

Keep in mind it usually takes an interested creditor's lawyers to bring a lot of this stuff up and then look at bitcoin investors track record on hiring lawyers and pursuing shady characters. Odds look to be in the shady characters favor, atm.

Quote from: Bogart on November 28, 2012, 02:14:26 AM

Quote from: Coinoisseur on November 28, 2012, 01:29:46 AM

I'm going to predict BFL eventually announces delays into January, their latest explanations + revised timeline appear irrationally optimistic.

What's irrational is their explanation for the delay. "Oh, there's no flaw in the chips, but we're scrapping the lot of them anyway to make new ones with some added clock buffers." How much sense does that make?

Even their previous reasoning was implausible, 2 week turn around on a chip problem. It appears like their "correction" seeks to alleviate that portion of the wtf but then creates it's own implausibility 'We had working chips but even though people are clamoring for product we decided we could make them even better if we delay'.