Registered: 1435857416 Posts: 963
Reply with quote #1
Docket 60, filed earlier today, it was reported that "Subsidiaries were not reported separately for tax purposes." It refers specifically to NBD Holdings, LLC and Nucleo Development Company, LLC. Those two companies are not considered part of the bankruptcy (Nucleo Development Company was specifically referred to as a "non-debtor"), yet apparently their finances were one and the same. Given that it refers to "tax purposes", that suggests that this was the case even before 2011, as the 2011 and later tax returns were never prepared or filed.
Registered: 1438906757 Posts: 16
Reply with quote #2
"Previous management has agreed to work with Dan Bensimon and provide the information necessary to prepare the Rule 2015.3 Report."
The plot thickens...
Registered: 1437532518 Posts: 65
Reply with quote #3
Chuck's other LLCs and any personal assets chuck may have acquired using illegal funds I would say are all in question.
Registered: 1440038581 Posts: 1
Reply with quote #4
I can't understand how on earth any "subsidiary" could not be considered part of the bankruptcy, but if I had enough skin in the game to hire an attorney, one of the first things I would pursue would be piercing any corporate veils to get them added to it.
Maybe McAllister thinks he can stash some of his Ponzi scheme's proceeds in other entities for a couple of decades until his defrauded customers have finished fighting over the hollow shell of Bullion Direct and moved on.
Registered: 1435857416 Posts: 963
Reply with quote #5
Originally Posted by
MikeInMass I can't understand how on earth any "subsidiary" could not be considered part of the bankruptcy, but if I had enough skin in the game to hire an attorney, one of the first things I would pursue would be piercing any corporate veils to get them added to it. Maybe McAllister thinks he can stash some of his Ponzi scheme's proceeds in other entities for a couple of decades until his defrauded customers have finished fighting over the hollow shell of Bullion Direct and moved on. That's just the way that bankruptcy works. And it really does make sense (in most situations) if you think about it. Here, we have a company that went bankrupt (Bullion Direct). It has a wholly owned subsidiary (Nucleo Development Corp.). In theory, it is paying its bills on time, operating properly, and all is well (that's probably *not* the case, but assume it is). Why tell its customers it is in bankruptcy, and they will have to accept pennies on the dollar, when the company has enough money to pay them? I know what you are thinking -- THAT IS NOT FAIR! But, who owns that company? You do! Wait, reminder: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice (the bankruptcy estate likely owns the company). But for the Chapter 11 bankruptcy to succeed, it has to either liquidate (Nucleo is sold and you get your share of the money), or continue operations somehow (which can only happen if the reorganization plan is approved, which should only happen if creditors find what they get acceptable). In reality, given the title of this thread, it looks like everything is messed up, and corporate shields are lying on the floor all mangled. And there is no sign that Nucleo even had a single sale or customer, and it appears to get its money from Bullion Direct. So it may simply get treated as if it were part of Bullion Direct, and part of the bankruptcy -- but I don't really see that changing the outcome. The other piece of the puzzle is if there is money from Bullion Direct stashed in Nucleo or other companies Charles McAllister is affiliated with. And for that, I believe the bankruptcy and the criminal investigation will delve deeply there. I believe the unsecured creditors' committee plays a big role there (since there is no Chapter 11 Trustee). Just because Nucleo (and other companies) are not bankrupt does not mean they will not be affected. If, for example, there is a check for $1,000,000 to a company "Charles' Foley," with no rational explanation, that company is almost certainly going to get examined. They will have to explain what the check was for.
Registered: 1436130945 Posts: 83
Reply with quote #6
A tad off topic, but I haven't heard a mention about the possibility of off-shore bank accounts, real estate holdings, etc. His family's finances should also be scrutinized.
Neat Charles is not a stupid man and I believe him to be a criminal sociopath; he has had a lot of time to think this through. He provided a safety net for himself.
Registered: 1436444663 Posts: 360
Reply with quote #7
Some evidence has come up, but generally it's been sent off to the relevant authorities and not posted to the forums. I may not like CM, but it's not my job to hunt him or prove it - just make it easy to prove.