I notice in the last mentions usagi made about the BMF insurance thing (in theory BMF is still owed 500 BTC from CPA for that - or would be if usagi ever made a claim against CPA on BMF's behalf) that it's now back to its initial explanation (only eventually made a few months after I raised it - te claims it had been explained multiple times are just outright lies) that the contract was somehow just a "test" - though why BMF needed to actually pay premiums or the shareholders had to be told insurance cover was in place for this "test" to work was never made clear.  But if someone has a look in the last posts usagi made on that topic before GLBSE died (posts ofc are now deleted) you'd find that usagi was at the stage of admitting that the BTC was in theory owed and actually talking about various ways to address it - including CPA returning its shares in BMF to BMF.  The argument against this (by usagi) was basically that it would hurt CPA - as ever, consistently failing to seperate duties to different entities and advising BMF shareholders based on CPA's interests.