deafmx Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Hall Of Fame inductee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebiglebowski Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Vinyljunkie, you have convinced me to retract my earlier statement and say everyone is equally owed. The investment analogy is true, but clearly key information about the investment was held out. We aren't talking about someone investing in penny stocks hoping to get rich (where the risks are known and agreed to by the purchaser), it is closer to Bernie Madoff.Someone want to report Virgil to the SEC? No, you are talking about investing in a penny stock. Anyone who paid for the lifetime subscription without considering the chance the label would go belly up is naive. It was a business just like any other business. They invested hoping that down the line they'd make a return on their investment (in records, not dollars). It didn't happen and that sucks, but that's how it goes sometimes. What would you call "key information"? And the Madoff comparison doesn't make any sense at all. Madoff took peoples money with the intent to defraud them. Virgil just didn't do a good job running his business. I was focusing on the front that "everything is ok" when there were firestorms behind the scenes. I debated using the Madoff analogy because I know it doesn't fit exactly. Big difference in intent. Any publicly traded company puts it's financial information out there, so you know what you are getting into. This is the "key information" that people were unaware of. Those people may have been naive, but they were defrauded (by being led to believe that the label was operating as normal and there would be many releases to come, when it was on its last legs). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appletree Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Hall Of Fame inductee? I was thinking this last night... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerseypride Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Vinyljunkie, you have convinced me to retract my earlier statement and say everyone is equally owed. The investment analogy is true, but clearly key information about the investment was held out. We aren't talking about someone investing in penny stocks hoping to get rich (where the risks are known and agreed to by the purchaser), it is closer to Bernie Madoff.Someone want to report Virgil to the SEC? No, you are talking about investing in a penny stock. Anyone who paid for the lifetime subscription without considering the chance the label would go belly up is naive. It was a business just like any other business. They invested hoping that down the line they'd make a return on their investment (in records, not dollars). It didn't happen and that sucks, but that's how it goes sometimes. What would you call "key information"? And the Madoff comparison doesn't make any sense at all. Madoff took peoples money with the intent to defraud them. Virgil just didn't do a good job running his business. A couple of things. First, the SEC only has jurisdiction with respect to publicly traded companies. So something privately held like VC shares are not within the purview of the SEC. Second, even if someone makes an investment in equity securities that is purely speculative, management of the company owes fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to the company/shareholders. A breach of these duties can give rise to claims for damages. The duty of care requires management to exercise reasonable business judgment in conducting the affairs of the company. The duty of loyalty prohibits management from engaging in self-dealing or preferring its own interests at the expense of shareholders. To be clear, I'm not familiar with the precise facts surrounding the demise of the VC co-op so I'm not saying there are viable claims here. My point is that shareholders are not without recourse when their investment goes belly-up as a result of gross mismanagement or self-dealing by the company's principals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goombagod Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I never got a kay kay test pressing i won from one of those auctions. I just remember that, bummer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yocaseycasey Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Scott = Virgil virgil = recordhound Hahahaha I spit up soda when I read these two posts in a row. Poor Adam Hamilton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yocaseycasey Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I love lamp. I gave you +1 for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appletree Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 No, you are talking about investing in a penny stock. Anyone who paid for the lifetime subscription without considering the chance the label would go belly up is naive. It was a business just like any other business. They invested hoping that down the line they'd make a return on their investment (in records, not dollars). It didn't happen and that sucks, but that's how it goes sometimes. What would you call "key information"? And the Madoff comparison doesn't make any sense at all. Madoff took peoples money with the intent to defraud them. Virgil just didn't do a good job running his business. A couple of things. First, the SEC only has jurisdiction with respect to publicly traded companies. So something privately held like VC shares are not within the purview of the SEC. Second, even if someone makes an investment in equity securities that is purely speculative, management of the company owes fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to the company/shareholders. A breach of these duties can give rise to claims for damages. The duty of care requires management to exercise reasonable business judgment in conducting the affairs of the company. The duty of loyalty prohibits management from engaging in self-dealing or preferring its own interests at the expense of shareholders. To be clear, I'm not familiar with the precise facts surrounding the demise of the VC co-op so I'm not saying there are viable claims here. My point is that shareholders are not without recourse when their investment goes belly-up as a result of gross mismanagement or self-dealing by the company's principals. Yeah I am no expert on any of this, but my understanding is as follows...please please note this is my quick and non-experienced understanding so a lot of it may be inaccurate or completely wrong... I invest in a pizza joint that is trying to start up in town. I ensure the business starter, call him Joe, puts what he has forward, to know that he can't just worm out, and myself and other potential investors invest in the business start-up. It is agreed upon on when our investment will be returned and may be on the lines of 80/20 (in investors favor to pay them back asap). Once investments are paid it may flip to 20/80 (so in Joe's favor now), and he can then chose to buy any or all of us out whenever he sees fit. Let's assume Joe works his ass off at the restaurant. Barely getting sleep and working days and nights to keep it up and running. He decides to say fuck it and either start mismanaging the company and purposefully running it into the ground (which people honestly do) or decides to go belly up. He figures if he loses everything they can take nothing. What is to stop Joe from just quitting and caring less? He came to the conclusion that he is the one working his ass off, the one at the restaurant every day, and so on so forth. He feels why should he be the one doing all the grunt work and sending all these people his hard-earned money? What he does not realize is that he would not have a pizza business without them. He would not have had the opportunity to have that hard work and something with his name on it if he had not had help. From the investors view they made a huge risk investing in a business which could flake out, have a bad review, get shut down for a dirty kitchen, burn to the ground, etc. So in the event it goes belly up because of Joe's actions, whether on purpose or accident then they are left high and dry, because well that is the risk they took? Maybe it is circumstantial, but once again not sure how it all works exactly. /end shitty example Like others have said I can imagine that he had all the intentions of it working out, things going smooth, big ideas, big plans, etc. I doubt he wanted it to end up like it did but regardless of how it got to where it is today it is where it is. Now I think it is relevant though because if it fell apart because of shit falling from the sky and just unraveled that is one thing. If money was bleeding out and not being managed, being spent at will, or the products produced were mismanaged, then it is the business owner who is just as much responsible. I understand the investors take a risk, but where is the line? One argument could say it was an investment and they could have made a wiser decision on who/what they were investing in. They gave him the responsibility to properly invest their money with agreed upon releases and products. The other argument could say he mismanaged the company and due to his actions improperly invested their money, used their investment for frivolous things or items not agreed upon, thus the blame is on him. I guess some will blame the investors, some blame him, and in reality maybe the blame is on both parties. Although one party should not be able to move on and the other left high and dry, the lose should be partitioned between the two? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tokimedo Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 havent read much of this thread, but upon meeting scott in person, hes actually really nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 havent read much of this thread, but upon meeting scott in person, hes actually really nice. I think the consensus is that his initial argument is pretty dumb, rather than that he's a bad dude in any way. /backtolurking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nothingnatural Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 A small victory for humanity indeed, despite Jersey Shore apologist thebiglebowski's best attempts to drag it through the mud. This post deserved more attention. I laughed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebiglebowski Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I wasn't seriously saying Virgil is a Madoff clone and I wasn't seriously saying report him to the SEC. I invest in stocks and understand how a publicly traded company works. Appletree, your post was just too long. I didn't read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Just in case anyone was wondering Virgil still owes me money. Scumbag in my book. Hey, I resent that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deafmx Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 go back to getting banned, scumbag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I feel this needs a bump too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ethereal Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 just a heads up, he's selling a bunch of records on discogs under 'suburbanhomerecords' and carelessly listing them under wrong versions/pressings (to get more money? idk) but it's obvious he's not inspecting/grading what he's selling. just trying to save people some grief Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclz Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 coincidently a co-op post showed up in my timehop feed today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.