New to Crypto? Make sure you read the things you need to know about the Crypto Market in Canada for 2019. We've put all you need in this updated post!

Virtex Shareholders

1468910

Comments

  • MikeXBTMikeXBT Member Plus
    edited November 2015


    -the value of CAVirtex shares on Havelock was nowhere near $120 at the time of delisting
    -the buyback offer of $40 per share was 33% above IPO price
    -your shares were not acquired by Coinsetter; you still own an equivalent percentage of CAVirtex equity, as Coinsetter only bought out the majority shareholders' 90%

    -I believe CAVirtex shares were trading on Havelock for over $100 during delisting.

    -The people who paid $100+ for their shares weren't thrilled by the forced $40 buyback offer. People were TRADING shares of Virtex at $100+, they were then forced to accept $40 for locked up stock. For those familiar with bitcoin exchanges: This is similar to an exchange changing the balance on your account to potentially a much higher price, but freezing your account so you can't trade or withdraw. To capital markets people: This is the equivalent of de-listing a company whose stock is publicly trading at $100, and forcing them to accept $40 for shares in a PRIVATE company.

    I've purchased bitcoins for $170. It's currently trading at $323. If the exchange holding my bitcoins freezes my account, but gives me "33% more" than I paid for my coins, I would not be very happy. If I sold these coins for $323 and the exchange then froze the new buyers coins and claims that they were still paying more than the IPO price, the new owner of said coins would be even less thrilled.

    -So CAVirtex is not owned and acquired by Coinsetter? Your statement above makes it seem more like they INVESTED in majority ownership, but did not actually buy the company.
  • I agree that de-listing the shares from Havelock is kind of lame, but Havelock claims it occurred at around $50-$60. CryptoCoinsNews had also falsely reported the buyback offer to be $30.

    Coinsetter does not own 100% of CAVirtex; they bought out the majority shareholders, and now have executive control. The remaining shareholders (you guys) still possess valid shares of the CAVirtex entity, according to Joseph.
  • You can't pick and choose how some shareholders are treated. They are the same shares, and once you take a controlling interest there are laws that dictate how you have to treat the other shareholders you didn't buy.

    I can't go buy 51% of the shares of a company on the TSX, take over control and then not distribute or do nothing to the other 49% whose shares I didn't happen to buy to get my control.

    In fact laws come into play well before you even make it to 51%
  • superbit said:

    You can't pick and choose how some shareholders are treated. They are the same shares, and once you take a controlling interest there are laws that dictate how you have to treat the other shareholders you didn't buy.

    I can't go buy 51% of the shares of a company on the TSX, take over control and then not distribute or do nothing to the other 49% whose shares I didn't happen to buy to get my control.

    In fact laws come into play well before you even make it to 51%

    I don't really know or care much about corporate law. :tongue: Are you saying that Coinsetter cannot effectively acquire CAVirtex by purchasing 93% of the shares in it? That's what I'm told they did, which I guess would mean that CAVirtex and Coinsetter are two different stocks with different ticker symbols, but one has the other in its portfolio.
  • MikeXBTMikeXBT Member Plus
    edited November 2015

    I don't really know or care much about corporate law. :tongue: Are you saying that Coinsetter cannot effectively acquire CAVirtex by purchasing 93% of the shares in it? That's what I'm told they did, which I guess would mean that CAVirtex and Coinsetter are two different stocks with different ticker symbols, but one has the other in its portfolio.

    CAvirtex would still be a separate entity, with 93% of the shareholders being "Coinsetter". Neither have ticker symbols as neither are public.

    I believe superbit is complaining about the lack of updates, support, or resolution provided to the minority shareholders. "Soon, please contact Jaron" has been the answer, according to this thread, since March (EIGHT months ago). I guess when your investors are willing to be patient, you can just stall forever.
  • I think that it's a little messier than that. Neither are public; however, a public offering was made which gets into a whole new mess of securities laws.

    But yes for the most part just give some updates and be fair and equitable, I don't think that's too much to ask for.
  • CoinGuyCoinGuy Administrator
    @BitcoinCooperative I think the goal should be a reach out to Jaron. Obviously he is not responding to any enquirers
  • Have any investors here tried to reach Jaron since our interview and failed to get a response? If one of you confirm that to be the case, I will attempt to interview him, as well. I enjoy bothering rich people. :grin:
  • CoinGuyCoinGuy Administrator
    @BitcoinCooperative I'm not sure, but it would still be interesting to see his take publicly, as people like @superbit or @User1 and others seems to not have seen any relief.
  • testmantestman Member Plus
    Actually @BitcoinCooperative, I used to do freelance journalism, and you really should've reached out to them before you published your article.
    I am he as you are he as you are me, and we are all together. See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.
Sign In or Register to comment.