Quote from: knybe on January 23, 2014, 08:49:30 PM

Quote from: SebastianJu on January 23, 2014, 08:04:50 PM

Quote from: Ukyo on January 23, 2014, 10:12:54 AM

I truly hope you have some plans for the following:

a. be able to distribute funds from the sale to weex users in debt.
or
b. explain to a court appointed handler where portions of my assets are.
(As well as explain to other weex users why your debt is more important than theirs)

I think youre correct here ukyo. Regardless if the 106BTC owned are ActM-Funds or Ken's private funds. He cant simply sell them because the shares belong to a private person not weexchange. As long as ken cant proof that ukyo is personally liable he cant sell them because weexchange is in debt. Its a legal risk he takes. It would b different if ukyo personally is in debt because then it would be legal i believe.

On top this sell means lowering the shareprice for all shareholders.

If the shares are owned by weexchange it would be legal too. It would be luck for the person that has something that belongs to weexchange. Though it would be unfortunate for all other weexchange victims. The shares would belong to the company and not to a specific person then.

This has been gone over ad nauseam please let it die. Ken holds Uyko's property and Uyko holds Ken's 106BTC Now unless Ukyo pays this back then Ken can and should sell off enough of Uyko's shares as lien to recover lost funds. Whatever outstanding debts Uyko and Co. have are his responsibility, no one else's.

Quote from: kslaughter on January 23, 2014, 03:30:24 AM

CORPORATE AND COMPENSATION LAWS

Besides this is not for any of us to decide as I'm sure Ken has consulted with his lawyers and made his decision let it go.

Please dont ask me to stop speaking and then post im wrong.

You got my text wrong. It doesnt matter that ukyo owns weexchange. They are different entities by law. Or do you think, if the CEO of Apple owns you 2 Million USD that you are allowed to take away IPhones in the worth of 2Million USD from Apple, sell it for your own gain and everything is fine? No, that would be plain theft because the company has nothing to do with the CEO by law.

Feel free to respond... im not allergic to discussions.

By the way... im a big shareholder of ActM. I dont see that its needed so hard that ActM gets 106BTC now and that the shareprice has to drop for this artificially.