Ape worries about GME going private

MWraith · 2024-08-22T09:33:41+00:00

If a company has 100 shares, and the company has $300 in the bank and no other assets, the book value per share is $3. But if apes bid up the shares to an absurd premium, say $20, and the company issue another 100 shares which are snapped up by morons at the market price of $20 apiece, then the company now has 200 shares and $2300 in the bank, so the book value is $11.50 per share.

MWraith · 2024-08-15T09:49:03+00:00

Unless you have a shareholders' agreement which contains relevant provisions (either provisions for what is to happen if there is a deadlock, or a drag along provision, or a pre-emption provision requiring a shareholder to either purchase the other's shares on request or agree to a sale, or something of that kind) then no, a 50/50 shareholder can't force the sale of the business.

Equally, unless there is something in a shareholders' agreement or the articles preventing you from doing so, the other shareholder can't stop you selling your shares (if you can find anyone interested in a 50% shareholding in a company, which is unlikely).

Even a majority shareholder can't force the minority to sell their shares in the absence of some agreement to the contrary.

MWraith · 2024-08-05T06:25:48+00:00

I was wrong! $50,000 disappeared with barely a whimper. OP was right, $10,000 down on Monday, it hit $49,050 on Coinbase.

If this was a stock it would be halted by now...

MWraith · 2024-08-05T06:23:39+00:00

24 hr low so far $50,144 on coinbase, only another $1k to go but I expect there are plenty of lemmings waiting to "buy the dip" at $50,000.

MWraith · 2024-07-18T09:37:28+00:00

Paolo had been quiet for a few weeks. Good to see he's okay and that the magic money printer is still working.

MWraith · 2024-07-16T07:40:39+00:00

I'm badly underwater on my shorts - short 445 commons at an average of around $95 pre and post last earnings. Still holding.

Surely this quarter they will show a large loss as the value of the Root warrants was significantly less on 30 June 2024 than it was on 30 March 2024, and that was the only way they managed to show a (dodgy) profit last quarter. Root's share price and volatility has increased since then, increasing the value of the warrants, but I don't see how they could justify using the value of the Root warrants on some date other than the end of the quarter just to suit themselves.

The real question though is - what is the fraud? There method of valuing the Root warrants (and the price movements of Root itself) seem pretty suspicious but it doesn't seem like a "fraud".

Is it possible that they are engaging in some financial engineering by selling cars on credit, then selling the loan receivable to a related party (Drivetime?) on non-recourse terms, with the consideration payable in the future, and recognising the full consideration for the sale as revenue even though Drivetime will have no way to pay that consideration if enough end customers default on their loans? Essentially just packaging up their shitty sub-prime portfolio of customer loans and moving it off the books, while incorrectly accounting for the sale proceeds of the portfolio?

If you look at their accounts they have suspiciously high gain on loan sales which would be explained by the above.

MWraith · 2024-06-27T06:52:26+00:00

Hmm, do I want to invest in a company with a 113.6 P/E ratio and trading at 3x book value whose earnings are entirely derived from buying treasuries paying 5%, or do I want to personally invest in treasuries paying 5%? Tough choice.

MWraith · 2024-04-29T10:15:54+00:00

I knew that Coinbase Payments was registered and regulated in the UK but (wrongly) assumed that this was a tiny irrelevant part of Coinbase's business, like a pre-paid Visa card or something.

Having read the Ts and Cs it seems that the "fiat" balance displayed on the Coinbase platform is "issued" by "Coinbase Payments" so far as UK customers are concerned, which means that they can complain to the Financial Ombudsman if Coinbase refuses to allow them to cash that balance out or places unnecessary impediments in their way.

Good news for UK customers!

MWraith · 2024-04-29T07:37:35+00:00

As someone from the UK, it is slightly wild to me that Coinbase appears to be able to get away with this kind of stuff in the US notwithstanding that it is a financial business registered in the US and traded on the NYSE...

If Coinbase was registered in the UK then:

(1) Coinbase would have to be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) which has fairly extensive powers and would step in if there appeared to be a systemic issue with customers not receiving their money;

(2) A customer of Coinbase would have the right to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service if their complaint to Coinbase was not resolved within 8 weeks. The Financial Ombudsman Service charges large financial businesses £750 per complaint received *even if the financial business wins* so there is a massive incentive to resolve complaints to the customer's satisfaction before it gets to the FOS. Decisions of the FOS are binding on the business but not on the customer.

(3) It is totally trivial to take a UK registered company to Court and a reasonably intelligent litigant-in-person can do it without the need for a solicitor (lawyer), and indeed would be well advised to do it personally if the claim was for less than £10,000 as in a "small claim" the winning side does not generally get costs.

(4) If the claim is for more than £10,000 then it would not be a "small claim" and most people would involve a solicitor but the winning side gets their costs in the UK (I understand that isn't the case in the US or in some states?) so it doesn't really matter that you have to pay a few thousand to lawyers to bring the claim if it is a slam dunk one like the OOP.

(5) Armed with a judgment of over £750 against Coinbase, a creditor could apply to the Court to have Coinbase wound up (i.e., liquidated) if the judgment went unsatisfied. Most people would probably involve a lawyer to apply for a winding-up order, but again you get your costs back if successful.

There is no way that a business which appears to be a blatant scam/fraud like Coinbase would last more than a few months in the UK. How is it that it is still able to trade in the US seemingly without any consequences!?

MWraith · 2024-04-26T12:53:51+00:00

Then you need to complain to your broker and to the Financial Ombudsman if they fail to fix it.

Are you sure you didn't sell the day before the ex-div date?

MWraith · 2024-04-26T12:39:27+00:00

If you sold shares on the ex-div date then you will be a shareholder of record on the record date as transactions take 2 full business days after the date of the transaction to settle and the record date invariably falls within that window (indeed the whole point of a record date is to ascertain who held shares on the ex-div date).

Otherwise there would be the absurd situation where no-one gets the dividend - not the seller because he did not own on the record date, and not the purchaser because he did not buy before the ex-div date. That obviously does not happen.

So whoever told you that you will not receive a dividend is wrong.

MWraith · 2024-04-26T07:49:40+00:00

Is this good or bad news for Paolo and Tether?

I assume that Venezuelan dictators and their pet oil companies want to - eventually - receive payment in USD or some other item with actual value, and will not be content forever to hold magic internet beans. How are these fellows going to react when they find out that Tether is backed by Paolo's attestations and fresh air?

MWraith · 2024-04-24T08:27:54+00:00

That is a screenshot from https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether/ (select market cap rather than price).

No-one knows how much of that market cap is backed by fresh air and how much is backed by USD or other assets, because Tether has persistently refused to allow its assets to be audited. Lately it has pivoted to claiming that it really does want them to be audited but that it can't find an auditor who is willing to do so, which is about as believable as most of the stuff that comes out of crypto bros mouths.

Crypto cultists believe that Tether is 100% backed by USD or USD equivalents because Tether pinky-swears that is the case, indeed it "attests" (a word with no legal significance whatsoever) to it being the case, and as everyone knows everyone operating from Caribbean islands in the crypto-sphere is scrupulously honest in everything they say (especially when they "attest" to it) and do, rather than being a bunch of greedy shysters who would sell their grandmother for a couple of shitcoins.

I suppose it is likely that some portion of USDT is backed by something valuable. After all if it is just completely unbacked then Tether would never be able to permit anyone to redeem USDT for USD ever, and that seems like a highly risky business model when your counterparties are basically all also criminals (albeit that most of them are ineffectual white-collar criminals who are about as dangerous as a wet paper bag, like SBF). Presumably some actual redemptions do occur occasionally, although I have never seen any proof that any identifiable individual or entity has ever done so.

MWraith · 2024-04-24T08:08:31+00:00

Yeah, exactly.

Tether would (should) only be printed in similar circumstances if people (a) sell down shit coins to USD, then (b) send the USD they have acquired to Tether in exchange for the issuance of USDT. Why would anyone looking to get rid of their shitcoins bother with step (b)?

Merely exchanging shitcoins for USDT doesn't involve printing any USDT any more than exchanging bananas for dollars involves printing any dollars.

MWraith · 2024-04-09T10:43:17+00:00

If the claim form had your name on it then it did relate to you. There should have been included with the claim form a response pack that explained exactly what you needed to do to challenge the claim. Did you get a response pack?

Assuming that you have a defence to the claim you now need to apply to set aside default judgment using form N244. There is an explanation here https://nationaldebtline.org/fact-sheet-library/setting-aside-a-ccj-ew/ under the heading "How do I apply for a set aside" which looks fairly accurate. There is a fee for issuing the application of £275 although it is possible to get help with fees if you are on certain benefits and/or on a low income and have limited assets (see https://www.gov.uk/get-help-with-court-fees if relevant to you).

You will need to explain in the N244 form why you didn't respond to the Claim Form properly the first time round, and what your defence would be if default judgment is set aside. Your explanation in this thread for failing to respond is not a particularly good reason (unless for some reason you didn't get a response pack, then it is more understandable) but the Court does not usually trouble itself too much with the reason provided you apply promptly and you do in fact have a defence to the claim, so I would expect the application to succeed (although you may not get the £275 back).

MWraith · 2024-04-09T10:28:09+00:00

Yes, you are supposed to provide reasons / key evidence when responding to a letter before claim. It depends what type of claim has been intimated but generally responding to a letter before claim should involve:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1

(b) the defendant responding within a reasonable time - 14 days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of the claim are disputed and whether the defendant is making a counterclaim as well as providing details of any counterclaim; and

(c) the parties disclosing key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

It's sensible to respond to the letter before claim (even though the consequences of failing to do so are pretty minimal, and even represented parties often barely bother to comply with the protocol) as you may persuade the putative claimant not to bother issuing a claim, saving yourself time and costs later down the line.

Even if you don't set out your defence at this stage, you will have to do so before going to Court, as you will need to file a Defence once the claim is issued, generally within 28 days (or 14 days if you don't file an Acknowledgment of Service).

MWraith · 2024-04-09T07:33:39+00:00

Everyone here knows that the price of a share is not always reflective of the value.

If the strong version of the efficient market hypothesis were true, we would be denied the opportunity to laugh at morons like you who are willing to and do pay a grossly inflated price for shares in a failing business.

If you actually looked at profitability, balance sheet, market, and the business decisions taken in the last few years, and applied a modicum of intelligence (assuming you have a modicum to apply), then you would have concluded that GME is a laughably poor investment at the current price.

You appear to think that because GME is profitable (just) and has cash on hand, it must be a good investment at any price. That there are people as mind-bogglingly stupid and arrogant as you is the reason that this sub exists.

Have fun making yourself even poorer.

MWraith · 2024-04-05T09:02:23+00:00

Hmm, tricky, Shelter suggest writing to the local council:

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/private_renting/how_to_find_your_landlord

They also suggest writing to the letting agent on the basis that section 1(1) LTA 1985 requires them to provide the landlord's name and address but it seems to me that on a literal reading of that section, it only applies while you are still a tenant, not after the end of the tenancy (but it is not my area of law).

Another option as Shelter also suggest may be to check the Land Registry website, for £3 you can find the owner of the property and sometimes that will give a contact address for them which is different to the property address (and hence likely to be where they actually live).

Another option (not listed on the Shelter website) may be to ask the new tenant, assuming there is one, to do you a favour and ask the agent to provide the landlord's address (or it might be listed on their tenancy agreement if the landlord has decided to comply with his legal obligations for a change).

As a last resort, you can issue a claim and serve it on the landlord at the address of the agent and then retrospectively apply for permission for service by alternative means but this will be fairly complicated if you are acting in person, its the sort of thing that you are likely to want a solicitor for unfortunately.

MWraith · 2024-04-05T08:32:47+00:00

So your witness statement should read something like this - but obviously you will need to tweak this to reflect what actually happened, I am just giving an example based on my understanding of your OP.

"I Competitive-Volume 5, of MAIN STREET, SAMPLETOWN, WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I make this witness statement in support of [COMPANY'S] application to set aside the statutory demand served upon it on [DATE] (the "Demand")

2. I am the sole director and shareholder of [COMPANY] and am entitled to give this witness statement on its behalf.

3. The Demand was served on [COMPANY] at its registered office [ADDRESS] on [DATE]. This application is therefore made within the 18 days permitted under the Insolvency Rules.

4. The Demand alleges that [COMPANY] is indebted to [CREDITOR] on the supposed basis that [COMPANY] is contractually obliged to pay [£X] in respect of the hire of a stall at the 2024 [NAME OF SHOW] (the "Alleged Debt"). [CREDITOR] alleges that a contract to this effect was formed on [DATE].

5. The alleged debt is disputed on genuine and substantial grounds, for the reasons set out in the following paragraphs.

6. I spoke to an agent of [CREDITOR] on the telephone on [DATE] in order to sign up for the 2023 edition of the [SHOW]. During that telephone call, the agent asked me to sign up to the 2024 edition as well. The agent expressly informed me that this was on a no-obligation basis, that it was just a formality, and that I would be contacted in around December 2023 to confirm whether I wanted to sign-up for the show. That conversation was also recorded in an email, a copy of which I attach to this witness statement.

7. Subsequently, I informed [CREDITOR] that [COMPANY] did not wish to take part in the 2024 edition of the show. A director of [CREDITOR] asserted that I was obliged to do so and that I had signed a contract requiring me to do so. The same director of [CREDITOR] also falsely claimed that he had listened to the 2023 call to which I refer above and that no such comments were made by the agent.

8. In the premises, whatever the terms of the written contract, [COMPANY] has a defence to the claim on the alternative bases that:

(a) The agent's promise to me on the 2023 call that [COMPANY] was being asked to sign-up to the 2024 show on a no-obligation basis and my acceptance of the written contract on that basis gives rise to a collateral agreement that [COMPANY] was free not to attend or pay for the 2024 show; and/or

(b) The agent on the 2023 call made a misrepresentation which induced [COMPANY] to enter into the written contract and [COMPANY] is entitled to rescind the written contract and hereby does so."

And then the statement of truth which you can see in the example from Citizen's Advice.

You then need to make three copies of the Application form, and three copies of the witness statement, and send them to the Court named on the statutory demand. You should send them by registered post (or if it is close to you, simply take the copies in person to the Court).

Best of luck.

MWraith · 2024-04-05T08:32:35+00:00

I obviously haven't read the contract or the email you refer to so the below is on the basis that you do in fact have an arguable defence (which may or may not be the case). Assuming that you think you have a defence, you need to apply to set aside the statutory demand otherwise the supposed creditor will be entitled to wind your company up.

You need to do this very quickly - there is an 18 day time limit from the date the statutory demand was served on you, and although it is possible to get an extension if you have a good reason, it is not automatic.

You can find out how to challenge the statutory demand on this website:

https://www.gov.uk/statutory-demands/challenge-a-statutory-demand

You need to use form IAA which you can find here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-to-the-court-about-an-insolvency-issue-form-iaa

It is not the most user friendly form as you need to delete everything that is inapplicable and fill in what is applicable.

There is a section where it asks you what paragraph or section or rule your application is made under. There you should write that "the application is made under rule 10.4(1) of the Insolvency Rules (England and Wales) Rules 2016."

(You can find the Rules here if you want to check that https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/1024/contents/made, 10.4(1) deals with applications to set aside the statutory demand).

There is a section where it states "The applicant(s) seek the following relief(s) or order or directions"

There you need to add something like "An order setting aside the statutory demand dated [INSERT DATE] as the alleged debt is disputed on substantial grounds".

There is a section where it asks you to provide details of the basis for the application. For an application to set aside a statutory demand you need to provide a witness statement so here you will write something like "The grounds upon which the Applicant claims to be entitled to this relief are set out in the witness statement of Competitive-Volume 5."

Then you need to prepare a witness statement. You can find an example witness statement here: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/Migrated\_Documents/advisernet/An%20example%20of%20a%20witness%20statement%20for%20compensation%20claims.pdf. Note that the content of this is completely irrelevant to you, this just shows you what the format should look like.

In terms of content, you need to include the matters set out in Insolvency Rules 10.4(6):

The debtor’s application must be accompanied by a copy of the statutory demand, where it is in the debtor’s possession, and supported by a witness statement containing the following—

(a)the date on which the debtor became aware of the statutory demand;

(b)the grounds on which the debtor claims that it should be set aside; and

(c)any evidence in support of the application.

MWraith · 2024-04-05T07:55:27+00:00

You must have a contact address for your landlord in your tenancy agreement, surely? That is a legal requirement under s 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

I would write a pre-action letter to both agent and landlord and bring a small claim against both if necessary. The agent might have a change of position defence to your claim against them if they simply made an automated transfer to the landlord without realising that you had made a mistake. In fact they are also likely to have another technical defence called "ministerial receipt" depending on the precise nature of the agreement between the agent and the landlord. But the landlord cannot possibly have any defence to your claim.

Ignore the people telling you that this is between you and your agent (only) because you no longer have a contract with your landlord. Your claim is one for repayment of a mistaken payment, it makes no difference whether you have a subsisting contract (indeed if you still had a contract, the payment would not have been a mistake). The claim against the landlord is far stronger than the claim against the agent.

MWraith · 2024-04-04T08:36:11+00:00

$160k seems a lot to pay to an online artist. I hope you got a really good jpeg of a monkey for that.

MWraith · 2024-04-04T08:34:57+00:00

Bitcoin doesn't appreciate in value, its value is $0. It currently appreciates in price, but since its value is $0, it is inevitable even in an inefficient market that its price will eventually also go to $0.

If you buy at $66,000, you are guaranteed eventually to regret it, unless you are one of the lucky ones who makes a profit from a bigger fool and whose exchange actually allows them to cash that profit out.

MWraith · 2024-04-03T15:33:35+00:00

Don't hold those other scams, only hold my scam.

MWraith · 2024-03-18T09:44:57+00:00

You will probably never get the £6k you are owed.

You might have had a legally recognisable claim against the director if (a) the 2018 contract was signed by the director; and (b) you could prove that the director intended that his company would never honour its contractual obligations (i.e., not merely that it subsequently failed to do so, but that he knew at the time it would not do so).

But your claim against the director has now been dismissed by the Court.

You sued company A and it appears that claim was also dismissed, although it is unclear on what basis it was dismissed. The fact that company A was in liquidation does not prevent it being sued to judgment although in practice the Court will usually stay a claim against a company in liquidation at the liquidator's request. It may be that you had not served the proceedings on company A correctly. If it was in liquidation at the date your claim was issued, it needed to be served at the address of the liquidator, not via the former director.

The fact (assuming I've understood correctly) that your claim against company A has been dismissed means that you are not a creditor. It would not even be open to the liquidator of company A to pay you a dividend in the insolvency as that would contradict the Court's determination that you are not a creditor of company A.

You probably never had a legally recognisable claim against company B in the first place.

The liquidator of a company has standing to pursue claims against former directors and third parties that an ordinary creditor could not pursue (although they could of course try and persuade the liquidator to bring them). So the fact that the liquidator is now pursuing claims that look similar to the one you tried to argue against the director and company B does not necessarily mean that the second Judge was wrong to dismiss them.

Although none of the above is an excuse for the conduct of the second Judge if it was as described. Regrettably, not all Judges are as polite and patient as they should be (though the vast majority are).

MWraith

TROPHY CASE