Are you requesting a scammer tag because Usagi is making preferential payment for his bankrupt company?  

Applying for reconsideration of the scammer tag for usagi.

1) usagi has been misleading his customers in the past in various fraudulent business schemes

Even if it were the case that this was not enough for a scammer tag, he now:

2) has deleted about 1000 of this posts to remove the evidence
3) does not want those posts to be restored

Something else to be considered:

4) he has a VIP label and should therefor be under extra scrutiny

5)  Is back hawking a new business venture in this community despite there being unresolved issues surrounding his past ventures.  If the point of the scammer tag is to warn people against dealing with those who have an unsatisfactory record when it comes to meeting their obligations, then this is exactly the kind of situation in which it can be useful.

The exact same procedures are used for the dissolution of any legal entity.  A bankruptcy is just one form of the general closure process, other examples exist, including trusts and estates.  The same concepts apply in general, but there are a few exceptions in different branches.  Common to all is that someone is managing, liquidating, and distributing assets that do not belong to them * , and that they have a fiduciary duty to treat all claimants equitably.  The notion of equity shifts a bit in different types of cases too, for example, you can put somewhat arbitrary rules in your will, and the trustee is expected to follow them, and only genuine residue after the will is fully executed is requires an equitable distribution.

If he personally declared bankruptcy, he would not be the trustee of his own liquidation, one would be appointed by a judge/magistrate, and I bet if that happened, the poor guy would have to take up drinking after sorting out this mess.  I'm still going on the assumption that there is no official record of his ventures as registered legal entities, which strongly suggests that his "contracts" created an assumed trust, and that said trust is now under liquidation.

Since an assumed trust exists because of the contract that spawned it, such a contract can specify peculiar rules for liquidation, and those rules should be followed (unless someone files for an injunction, or unless the rules are contrary to some other law).  In all other cases, including, as far as I can tell, this case, the default rules should be followed, and if a court got involved (unlikely here, but still) they would appoint someone to do it pretty much like I described.


* The person managing the assets is generally known generally as a trustee, but they also called a receiver in certain types of bankruptcy, etc.  The assets themselves are still owned by the corporation, if properly incorporated, by the estate, or by "the trust" (which is the pseudo-entity that is assumed to exist whenever a contract requires such a thing) until liquidated/distributed.  Note that the trustee may, in some cases, also be a claimant.  For example, a child of the deceased in estate matters, or the managing partner in a partnership, or a shareholder/manager in a small company or corporation.  Such people need to be very careful, because the burden of proof is surprisingly low in civil matters.  For that reason, generally, no one will come after you with criminal charges unless you are a huge dick, but many breaches of fiduciary duty also meet the definitions of criminal fraud.