[For news on NWT Mint, see http://about.ag/NWTMint.htm]
[For research on bullion dealers, see http://BullionDealerData.com]




Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
Alabama

Member
Registered:
Posts: 47
Reply with quote  #16 
This is horse sh*t.. They're basically paying 100k to keep from being sued. Sounds like there's something to hide & she doesn't want anyone poking around/
1
Cbrad01

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 29
Reply with quote  #17 
Do we not get a say it what happens?
It's my money they lost and playing around with what little is left...
Can we "use" the money we lost to present a bid, mean enough folks who lost money agree and use their losses to bid?
At this point is sickens me that we are selling our rights to recover for a 100k which is nothing compared to the lose and she comes out like a winner.

0
JG

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 960
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama
They're basically paying 100k to keep from being sued. Sounds like there's something to hide & she doesn't want anyone poking around/


I'm sure the creditors' committee has done some poking. And there are potential gotchas -- if, for example, payments were being made from Bullion Direct to them, and Dan Bensimon didn't mention this fact, he could be in trouble.

The cool thing is if anyone outbids them, they don't get that protection. So if you focus on trying to find someone to take over the company, you can help ensure that they do not get that protection.

0
roadrunner

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #19 
I'm beginning to think the 'creditors committee' was paid off and made whole on their investment losses in exchange for going along with what the people of BDI want to protect themselves. What is the potential benefit and probability that we are going to do any better than if they simply liquidated and we got our pennies per dollar lost? Are the chances better with this sale that we'll receive 75%, 50%, 25% of our losses? Or the same outcome with them receiving protection against legal actions taken for their past crimes?

I haven't heard anything from the creditors committee, and their justification/reasoning in doing what they have been doing since these hearings began. Has anyone else? If they are representing the rest of us, why don't they tell us what they're doing and why? This forum should be the platform for them to keep us informed.  
1
roadrunner

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #20 
Did Huseman and Murph present a business plan with projected numbers for years 1-7 of the revived business?

What are the projected sales, selling expenses, and profits for the new business? No one seriously contemplates starting a business without first running the numbers to see if the new business will be viable and profitable. 

It sounds great that the creditors will get 80%, 60% and 50% of the profits in years 1-7. But I could open a lemonade stand in front of my house, sell $25 of lemonade per day, and pay myself $50 per day, guaranteeing no profit shown on the books.

First, I highly doubt they will revive the tainted business that was BDI. And even if they did, they can manipulate the expenses so that there is no profit shown. Just as Charles did in putting BDI into bankruptcy. As if going from a 2% to a 3% commission is going to turn things around and make it a profitable business.

As someone noted earlier, this 'sale' is just a buy-off against legal liabilities. There won't be a reborn company, and there won't be profits to share with the creditors. We'll be no better off than if they had simply ended this with a liquidation months ago.

Again, I wonder why the creditors committee is agreeing to this.  
1
JG

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 960
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrunner
Did Huseman and Murph present a business plan with projected numbers for years 1-7 of the revived business?


Yes:

Year 1 sales: $3.9M, profit: $(113K)
Year 2 sales: $13M, profit: $247K
Year 3 sales: $40M, profit: $794K
Year 4 sales: $80M, profit: $2M
Year 5 sales: $85M, profit: $2.1M
Year 6 sales: $85M, profit: $2M
Year 7 sales: $85M, profit: $2M


Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrunner

First, I highly doubt they will revive the tainted business that was BDI. And even if they did, they can manipulate the expenses so that there is no profit shown. Just as Charles did in putting BDI into bankruptcy. As if going from a 2% to a 3% commission is going to turn things around and make it a profitable business.


Yes, reviving it will be tough. And creditors will play a key role: if when it starts creditors tell everyone not to use the new business, it will be much harder to start up. If creditors believe in the business and spread the word about it, it might have a shot.

Remember, too, that Charles was paying himself $250K or so a year. He was hiring high-level management that were going on wild goose chases looking at somehow coming up with $4M cash as downpayments on gold mines. A business becomes profitable through a *combination* of revenue and expenses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrunner
As someone noted earlier, this 'sale' is just a buy-off against legal liabilities. There won't be a reborn company, and there won't be profits to share with the creditors. We'll be no better off than if they had simply ended this with a liquidation months ago.

Again, I wonder why the creditors committee is agreeing to this.  


Then there is one thing you can do: spread the word about the auction, see what you can do to find bidders with better plans! Few people have the incentive that Charles' parents have, but plenty of people have more cash that they can put up. And there are plenty of bullion dealers out there who could really expand their business with this.

0
gyro

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 27
Reply with quote  #22 
So now we receive a Class 5 Ballot (due 7/13/2016) to either accept or reject Charles Hadley McAllister's plan for Ch 11.  His lawyers recommend we accept, which they prefer to the default alternative of Ch 7 (liquidation sale).

But...what is truly best for us claimants???
0
Cbrad01

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 29
Reply with quote  #23 
At this point I am voting no. I would rather it go into chapter 7, get dumped and Mom get nothing.
Will anyone here do business with them again?
Trust a company owned and ran by CMs mom with your money?
Not I, I say....
1
JG

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 960
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gyro
So now we receive a Class 5 Ballot (due 7/13/2016) to either accept or reject Charles Hadley McAllister's plan for Ch 11.  His lawyers recommend we accept, which they prefer to the default alternative of Ch 7 (liquidation sale).

But...what is truly best for us claimants???



FWIW, the unsecured creditors' committee is recommended voting to ACCEPT the plan.

0
mindmelter

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 29
Reply with quote  #25 
I don't like the situation but I'd rather get more back than pennies on the dollar.

0
Cbrad01

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 29
Reply with quote  #26 
Agree, my loss wasn't bad as most I got lucky.
It just feels like the only winners are CM, his mommy and the lawyers...
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.