No, just surprised to have a fan here. 

Only 338 people bothered to reply to Adam's  poll, so perhaps only 337 traders read this thread regularly. 

My guess (just a guess) is that the Lithuanian young man of that CV (posted 2010 - it says "age 21") is indeed the person Mr. Brewster was alluding to in that interview, but he may not even be aware of having become owner of Future Entertainment.  I do not think that he had anything to do with Neo & Bee.

There are several people with last name "Antonovicius" in Googleland, but no other "Romualdas Antonovicius".  Not only was he in England in 2010, near the time of the cancelled event (2012), but the range of the towns he mention in his CV (Coventry, Wisbech) overlaps that of the towns associated to Mr. Brewster (Doncaster, Manton, Lincoln).  Manton is almost halfway from Coventry to Wisbech.

According to that CV, Mr. Antonovicius went to England in 2008 or 2009 (at age 19  or 20), was between jobs in 2010, and was only 23 at the time of the cancelled event.  He may have bought the company without realizing what it implied (and without the sale being officially registered).  Or he may have been only a casual acquaintance of Mr. Brewster, who may have given his name to the reporter to send the creditors on a wild goose chase.  For all I know, Mr. Antonovicius may not even have been in England in 2012.

Hm, isn't that copy-paste from a post of mine?

The bad news are already out there: May/10 seems to be for real, one Chinese exchange already closed, and the CEOs of the other exchanges apparently can't find anything upbeat to say.  Not at all like a month ago, after the Caixin leak, when they thought that they had found workarounds.

I can't see why the price would not go below 2300 CNY (~375 USD) by the end of the week.  It got there on Apr/11, on mere rumors that this would happen...

Just to clarify this last point:
* What a company promises or "explains" on a forum or on TV is totally irrelevant, only contracts and legally binding documents matter.
* If a contract leaves any point optional or unspecified, one should assume the alternative that will maximize the money pocketed by the management.
* In particular, a contract must be carefully examined for loopholes like "after subtracting expenses" or "as determined by a future audit" or "at the discretion of management" etc.
* The  contract is worthless if the company is constituted, located, or registered in such a way that the management cannot be prosecuted for violating it.

I though that some might appreciate this map:

[ png version ]
EDIT: map source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1862_Johnson_Map_of_England_and_Wales_-_Geographicus_-_England-johnson-1862.jpg
EDIT 2014-05-05: Colchester should have been Coventry, sorry.  Corrected the map.

Well, if you find a true believer who owns a private jet plane, you can buy the plane from him and hire him as a pilot with 0.01 BTC. Then you can be flying over Brazil in 10 hours maybe.  Then you only have to find a tropical thunderstorm over the Amazon (almost certainly there will be one somewhere), fly into it, parachute out of the plane and unravel a roll of fine copper wire on the way down.

In response to the threat posed by the rebellious altcoins, this board should forsake its tradition of tolerance and institute a Bitcoin Inquisition, to evaluate all posts for possible heresy or offensiveness to the One and Only Cryptocurrency. 

May be of interest:
Bitcoin in Chinese dilemma : the lack of recharge channel blockage scenarios (in Chinese)
Source: Sina Technology Post Time :2014 -05-05 00:24
http://3c.ycwb.com/2014-05/05/content_6666425.htm
(Note that Google Translate's "fire currency network", in random order, is "huobi.com"; "Paypal" is "Alipay")

Chinese Slumber Method prediction for Monday May 05

Prediction valid for: Monday 2014-05-05, 19:00--19:59 UTC (not before, not after)
Huobi's predicted price: 2676 CNY
Bitstamp's predicted price: 434 USD





[ Plot legend ]

The data point for today May/04 was very good (S = 0.0020, W = 0.921).  It was well off the previously assumed trend, but that trend dependend on yesterday's data point, which was very weak (W = 0.009).   Fitting a straight line to the last three points, by weighted least squares, gives A + B*(d-d0), where (d-d0) is the number of days since May/02, A = 2743.73, B = -22.49.

The Bitstamp prediction, as usual, is the Huobi prediction divided by the currency conversion factor R, taken to be 6.16 CNY/USD.  Its value was 6.16 today (May/04), 6.17 yesterday, and 6.08, 6.11, 6.22, 6.25, 6.05, 6.09 on the previous good sample times.
 
Checking the previous prediction

Prediction was posted on: Saturday 2014-05-03, 23:12 UTC
Prediction was valid for: Sunday 2014-05-04, 19:00--19:59 UTC (~20 hours later)

Huobi's predicted price: 2600 CNY
Huobi's actual price (L+H)/2: 2699 CNY
Error: 99 CNY (~16 USD)

Bitstamp's predicted price: 427 USD
Bitstamp's actual price (L+H)/2: 438 USD
Error: 11 USD
 
NOTE: This predition is entirely free, as in free beer.
  Satisfaction guaranteed or 20% of your money back, minus our expenses.

But can they withdraw the CNH from BTC-e to their mainland bank account?

Arbitragers and some other clients will do that.  But most Chinese clients would need to open a bank account in the West in order to withdraw dollars from Bitstamp, and then will have to convert those dollars to CNY so that they can spend them at home.  Since the price at Bitstamp is unlikely to go much higher than now in the near future, many will rather sell now at Huobi.

If the Chinese exchanges are going to close, where would they sell them?  For most Chinese, the non-Chinese exchanges must be as viable as the Chinese ones are for Westerners.

Here is one: they are traders (possibly unexperienced) who bought at much higher price, say 4000¥.  They have been waiting patiently for the price to go up again to those levels.  But now that the the future of Chinese exchanges is uncertain they got desperate and are clumsily trying to push the price up with those fake bid walls.  But they cannot just leave the bids there, since they definitely do not want to buy.  So they must remove them whenever they have to leave the computer for any reason.

How does China fit into this picture?  And the growing list of scams and failures of bitcoin-related ventures?

Huobi's order book is insane.  Must be kids playing traders while their parents are away.  Or the traders are all drunk.

This is quite incorrect. First, for the purposes of a recovery plan, each customer is worth a NEGATIVE amount equal to its account balance (that is what MtGOX owes him), plus a positive amount equal to the fees that he is expected to generate over, say 2 years.

IIRC, the sum of the accounts was found to be about 800'000 bitcoins, worth about 400'000'000 USD at current prices, plus a large amount of dollars.  That is the NEGATIVE part.

For the positive part, only active customers count; inactive customers, that do not trade, generate no income. IIRC, according to analysis of the database leak by @rpietila,  MtGOX had around 70'000 active customers, and that with a very generous definition of "active".  To pay 100 US$ of trading fees, a customer would have to trade a lot.  If the NewMtGOX decided to charge significant maintenance fees, most of those 70'000 customers would probably close their accounts.  So this positive term -- the value of MtGOX's customer base -- is very small, maybe only 1/100 of the negative term above.

The significant positive terms in the evaluation of MtGOX are the bitcoins and dollars that MtGOX actually had (I lost count, was it 220'000 BTC?).  Adding everything gives a huge NEGATIVE value for the company.  Who would pay even a satoshi for the "privilege" of having to pay hundreds of millions of dollars of debts?

The Sunlot proposal makes sense for them only because they propose to assume only the positive terms above, spend some of that money for certain expenses, and then perhaps distribute the crumbs to customers, thus declaring the debts extinct.

It seems that the Chinese bulls who woke up at 4:30 am to play "up the price" have run out of gas.  The bears got up now, and are having some fun with bitcoin while waiting for lunch to be served.

Not disagreeing, just observing that the "concrete" debts (salaries, contractors, landlord, etc.), if any, must be much less than the remining assets.  So these  could get paid in full by liquidation.

I stil don't know how the clients will be handled by the liquidation court.  Will they be considered normal creditors, together with contractors and competing with them; or will they be considered a lower priority class?