Quote from: bonksnp2 on September 08, 2014, 07:02:31 PM

Quote from: stripykitteh on August 24, 2014, 01:09:07 PM

Quote from: vandinn on August 23, 2014, 06:44:39 PM

I don't understand what Kate is doing. If she can't honor her debt, she should announce CipherMine's bankruptcy. She should liquidate CipherMine's assets and the proceedings of this action should be paid to bondholders. If there is anything left (which there won't be), she should pay the rest to CipherMine's shareholders.
It is unreasonable to expect we could get our whole investment back. But Kate should act on her own words and move ahead as she promised she would in a situation like this.
Not only is Kate building up an untrustworthy reputation in the Bitcoin community which might affect her future career in technology. By being inactive, she is also incentivizing us to carry legal action against her, the costs of which she will have to cover. And she clearly IS breaching the terms of contract if she continues to operate CipherMine.

I believe the situation is a bit different to what you describe.

In common law systems, like the UK, US and Australia, in order to enforce your legal rights you need to identify the correct counter-party to sue. The counter-party will be a company, an individual or a group of individuals.

As far as I can tell, there was no company in existence at the time the bonds were for sale. Therefore the counter-parties are the individual founders, as they are the legal persons who were effectively making the offer, and controlled the use of the funds raised. In a legal sense, there is no 'Ciphermine', there's just Kate, Giles, Simon and Ross (being the people who held themselves out as the founders and operators of Ciphermine), and possibly anyone else who can be identified as being in that class of person. Ciphermine.B1 bondholders have a contract with those people. The terms of the contract require full payment of the bonds at face value upon redemption.

For reasons I've already gone into I think their liability waiver is void.

The only situation in which we should contemplate not getting our whole investment back is if all of the people who are counter-parties become bankrupt. It is my opinion they are all personally liable for the full amount, unless they show that the representations made about their involvment were incorrect. They also cannot avoid responsibility by simply claiming to have 'left the project'. The contracts are still in force.

So you're all in agreement that CipherMine shareholders should be held responsible for repaying the bonds? So not only do CM shareholders lose everything, but they have to pay out of pocket as well?

Read what I said, carefully. I didn't say that.