It definitely sounds to me like it's time to delist it. Any arguments against?
I'd suspend it rather than totally delist it. With criteria for going back live being:
1. Provide proper accounting for the losses on LHCOIN and the plan going forward.
2. Sort out the mess with his USD/LTC exchange (he held back payments claiming his PP account was frozen - but then claimed subsequently to have made payments via PP in respect of MOO.COW). If his account got suspended it's no excuse not to have paid other people 6 months on.
3. Repay the LTC he personally owes to MOO.COW plus back dividends. You may (or more likely may not - seems noone except me remembers it even though the posts detailing it still exist and were quoted so can't be deleted) remember supposedly he borrowed cash from MOO.COW when the previous scammer ran it and allegedly paid back some of that via PP (whilst his PP account being frozen was the excuse for not repaying people who'd sent him PP USD). But that still left a chunk of what he acknowledges as having personally borrowed never being repaid.
I know nothing about the guy, and have no stake in MOO.COW or anything else bovine-related, but I think adding a requirement to honor contracts outside the purview of the contract filed with the exchange would set a bad precedent. So I'd say as long as he fulfills the MOO.COW contract terms and pays dividends as required, I'm not sure proof of accounting on non-related instruments should be required. I mean, it's not like suspending or delisting will actually grab back money owed (unless you can freeze his account, burnside, but I doubt there's any BTC in there if he's skimming elsewhere.) But yeah, seems reasonable from my disinterested 3rd party perspective to suspend the security for non payment of dividends - and the resumption of trading should be predicated on the payment of dividends, though, and nothing more (if that's the limit of the liability from a contractual standpoint.)