Even with current straight bankruptcy (hasan) trustee can address the court based on finance analysis and cuncil for new evaluations of intangible assets(btc) due to price violity and significant asset value increase after inital btc value evaluation, what if approved, with current straight bankrupty btc+forks must be sold to pay all creditors with updated and new evaluated claims. On another hand, only if CR and plan is approved, these btc and forks can be distributed unexchanged (unliquidated) to the creditors. All asset whatever tangible or not is liquidated only to the certain point to get liquid asset (funds) to pay all creditors. When that is done, bankruptcy is completed and court/trustee authority stops. Any remaining asset remain as asset what company can use to resume busines or whatever they choose. Ordinary, in bankruptcy liquidation, all asset in full had to be liquidated, because creditors claims are much higher then company assets worth. Its liqidated in full only if asset can't be sold partialy and there is no other assets to be liquidated. However, in MtGox bankruptcy things has changed, untangible asset are now worth much more then total of approved creditors claims and if claims stays with current evaluation, asset will be liquidated only to the funds worth what equal all total approved creditor claims, nothing more! Update: under bankruptcy (hasan) corporation has to be dissolved what after distribution of all creditors has been made and Court bankruptcy termination order , dissolution esentualy cause all remaining asset liquidation and surplus sent to the shareholders - Tibanne and then Mark Karpeles. Worst case scenario: The Court settle all creditors claim with current evaluated btc (483$) +fiat+interst coverted and paid as JPY where only enough intangible assets (btc) are liquidated (sold) to settle all creditors (what are almost already done), what makes bunkruptcy completed and reamining 165k btc and forks remain as Mtgox intangible asset where they can do whatever they want, liquidate and pay dividends, trade with btc, invest in other projects etc (bankruptcy is over, no obligation or liabilities to MtGox creditors). (Unfortunetly, in my opinion, this will most likely be the case. Read edit at the end of the OP). Update: under bankruptcy (hasan) corporation has to be dissolved what after distribution of all creditors has been made and Court bankruptcy termination order , dissolution esentualy cause all remaining asset liquidation and surplus sent to the shareholders - Tibanne and then Mark Karpeles. Better scenario: If some miracle (never) happens the Court accept new btc evaluation, but then these to be paid as JPY, all (or better to say) suficient remaining btc need to be sold(liquidate) to settle new evaluated creditor claims and question is how much liquid asset (funds) creditors would receive due crushing the btc price. Eventual btc+forks surplus(°) what would be quite lower then in worst case scenario, would remain as intangible MtGox asset where corporation can do whatever they want - bankruptcy is completed. (°(eventual btc+forks surplus would depend on new btc price evaluation for creditor claims and difference in new total claimed sum vs. funds JPY what trustee get from actual btc liquidation). Update: corporate dissolution aplies here too, just much less funds to be sent to the shareholders. Best scenario: (Low probability, read edit at end of the OP) Civil rehabilitation under supervision with approved plan where creditors can claim all remaining btc+ forks unexchanged (not liquidated) + what is already been liquidated. In this case, if plan is approved we would get 100% our current claim. We need to divide total claimed JPY sum with 50.058JPY (btc 483$) to get how much that is as btc base and on that result add aprox 17% of btc/bcc distributed as btc/bcc. Percentage (17%) might be lower, depend on ther lawsuit and non mtgox users creditor claims. Example of the best case scenario: Current approved claim. Rates to JPY (2014) BTC= 50,058.12 JPY; US$ = 1USD=103.64 JPY Currency US$ balance = 1,200$= approved sum JPY=124,368. Bitcoin balance = 14btc = approved JPY = 700,813.68 124,368+700,813.68 =825,181.68 JPY total of approved creditor claim/ that is sum what creditor receive 100% sum (liquid funds almost available, to be distributed as JPY). 825,181.68/50,058.12=> 16.48 BTC base: 16.48x17%=> 2.80 BTC and 2.80 BCC to return as cryptocurrency. Sumarise: Creditor receive 825,181.68 JPY and 2.80 btc and 2.80 bcc. That would be max return. Same calculation is aplied if creditor had only btc balances, only any currency (fiat) or both currency(fiat) and btc. Both fiat or currency mean: USD, EUR, GBP, JPY etc. Iam not sure what that actual CR and plan are in the "best case scenario" as I have no details. We actually need sort of "better case scenario" just without required to liquidate remaining btc+forks and to be distributed as intangible asset (btc+forks). Beside, its Trustee duty to look best interest of all creditors, but for bankrupt company as well, what might cause conflict. Its defenetelly hard and complex situation, for all parties. Questionable is whatever liquidated intangible asset (btc) under bankruptcy (straight or CR) are subjected to the capital gain (not dividend) and approprate income tax what would cause lower(dilution) funds distribution. However, in that case question is how would be regarded our creditor claims i.e. deductable as intangible asset value entry? Capital gain/profit- loss - deductable - expense=> corporate gross income - tax=> net income. So actually, from what I know from accounting practise, paid funds for evaluated claims would be asset (btc) "in value" while liquidated asset "out value" so actual capital gain net from btc are: difference in paid claims minus actal liquidation value! Beside, that "net capital gain" are not actually "net gain" as there are minus from other deductable sums and only when they are substracted make net income before corporate income tax! It maight be discharged, but I doubt it. Only liquidated untangible asset (btc) are regarded as corporation capital gain/profit, its not corporation dividends. Its conflicted situation because MtGox did not bought these btc, nor mined them, nor gifted, nor received as Mtgox investment and they were never corporation assets. Control of btc as intangible assets does not always equal propietorship (if there are contract or mutual agreement), but it will be (are) if not chalanged and Iam not sure on what grounds are we creditors then (unless corporation addmited debt/liability, but then again on what terms and conditions or user agreement these btc have been received?). Regardless, Trustee must have profesional finance advisoaccountant. Some examples of intangible assets: patents, trademarks, franchises, goodwill, copyrights, Internet domain names, performance events, licensing agreements, service contracts, computer software, blueprints, manuscripts, joint ventures, medical records, permits, and trade secrets and many more. When MtGox were alive, such intangible asset doesn't enter finance balance sheet neither as asset value or liability value. It would if MtGox exchanged them (trade) for his account with buy/sell price. MtGox when alive these btc just had to record in secundary books as btc +/- held analiticaly for each user. Under bankruptcy proceedings, such a intangible assets as bitcoin is very hard to assest (evaluate), usualy trustee waits until last minute bankrupt company to liquidate them or best bid (°) and to update btc evaluation value what prior were blank, in order creditors get as much as possible. In our case, trustee did not do that and I have not found anything what would make him to evaluate at start of the filling the claims. (°)Actually I think, in case of public auction certain restriction might apply, certain party can't bid (I might be wrong). However, not all asset are in the same category. In my country, bitcoin is regarded as financial asset, it does not matter is it tangible or not. If I as a person or the company make money from trading internet domains, it would be regarded as income subject to the tax. But if I as a person (not company) make money from exchanging certain personal financial assets, btc, any currency, diamonds, gemstone, gold and earn (dividends and interest excluded) from the positive rate difference, it would not be income subjected to income tax. But in same situation, company would be subjected to the taxes. Capital gain has two separate catogory, dividends what is profit on top of asset (asset reamin) and capital gain from the trade of asset, where one asset is exchanged to another asset and profit is from the rate difference, which can be either positive either negative. There was a lawsuit against bankrupt Mtgox where user requested full btc refund what were denied with this explanation:
Presiding Judge Masumi Kurachi said the Civil Code envisages proprietorship for tangible entities that occupy space and allow for exclusive control over them. The judge said it is evident bitcoins do not possess the properties of tangible entities...
There was a Reddit post a couple of days before about someone registering "Bitcoin" as a trademark and sending a cease and desist letter. That particular trademark was registered in the UK, dated 13 April 2018. It covers class 25 (clothing), class 32 (beverages) and class 33 (wine). A search for EU trademarks shows more results. One is the trademark originally filed in 2011 by MtGox and now owned by the Japanese exchange "Bitflyer". This trademark covers: Software for commerce over a global communications network. Electronic commerce services, namely providing information about products via telecommunication networks for advertising and sales purposes. Signal transmission for electronic commerce via telecommunication systems and data communication systems. Constructing an internet platform for electronic commerce. Another recent example is a trademark "Bitcoin" registered on April 4th of this year for group 30, which is for all sorts of candy. In contrast, if you search with "Google" or "Coca-Cola", you will find no trademarks registered by third parties for clothing or wine. That's because if anyone attempts to register such a trademark, Google or Coca-Cola will oppose the registration and stop it under Article 8 Paragraph 5 of the trademark Regulation 2017/1001. This prevents registration of a trademark that is identical to another trademark that "has a reputation in the Union". There are two reasons for this. One is that it would be unfair to Google if anybody could just go ahead and dilute their trademark. The other is that it would be unfair to give anyone an exclusive right to a valuable name when they had no part in the effort to create the value in the first place. With Bitcoin, the first aspect doesn't come into play. By design, there is no entity like Google owning the name Bitcoin. That also means that there is nobody who can oppose registration of a "Bitcoin" trademark for candy. But the second aspect is valid with Bitcoin as well. The German company Katjes, which has registered the Bitcoin candy EU trademark, had no part in the effort needed to develop Bitcoin to a $125 billion marketcap at the time of this writing. They are free-riding on the efforts of others. Which would not be a big problem if they didn't attempt to create an exclusive right for themselves. This is not possible with copyright. The open source license Bitcoin is built on makes sure that no one involved can claim any exclusive copyright on Bitcoin software. It is also not possible with patents. If you try to patent the concept of "proof of work", you should be blocked from doing so by the simple fact that this concept is public knowledge since January 3rd 2009. I think there should some way to stop people from registering copyrights for Bitcoin candy and free-riding on the good will created by others. But I don't see any such way in the existing Regulation. The closest parallel I could find would be the absolute ground for registration refusal in Article 7 Paragraph 1 (h), which stops people from registering a trademark "Germany" for candy, or the colors of the German flag. Just like Bitcoin, this is just a public interest. And just like Bitcoin, candy makers should be stopped from creating an exclusive right in a word (Germany) that has achieved fame based on something different from their own efforts. However, there is no such ground for refusal right now for "Bitcoin". That means two things. For one, every immoral actor around can race other sleazy scumbags to get a piece of the action. There are lots of goods where using the famous "Bitcoin" phrase might make sense for marketing purposes. Whoever gets his registration first will profit from the fame created by others. And in the longer term, the Regulation should be changed and terms that "have a reputation in the Union" should be off limits for registration, even if there is no trademark owner of them. (Cross-posted from my blog with links removed).
Did anyone bother to look if other coins had their name or symbol trademarked? I quick Google search showed me bitcoin had this.
I didn't search much but maybe instead of all that fuzz everyone made. We should just look at other more established coins. Lime our big brother bitcoin and see if they had similar problems. It looks line MtGox had a trademark on bitcoin. "To protect" the name. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128254.0 Maybe we should all do some research to understand our alternatives, instead of shooting down companies who are interested in the coin. Or praising their move. Maybe we should have already be aware of this like that before we started all this craziness. Shibe on
Someone on the #mtgox IRC channel pointed me to this. It seems to be an application by Tibanne Co. Ltd. for the Trademark name BITCOIN. I asked MagicalTux on #mtgox about it, but got no answer. W... Tibanne KK, the parent company of the now-bankrupt Japan-based bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox, is currently searching for investors to buy the company’s trademark rights to the word “bitcoin”. MtGox plans sale of the \'bitcoin\' trademark IBTimes UK Bitcoin's recent surge in value, which saw its price rise by over $100 (£60) in under a week, has levelled off at around $570. r/Bitcoin: A community dedicated to Bitcoin, the currency of the Internet. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money … The holding company of collapsed virtual currency exchange MtGox is looking to sell the trademark to the word Bitcoin, The Wall Street Journal said Wednesday.