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




Forum
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
JG

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 991
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PM
On the previous list, Patrice McAllister was listed as a unsecured creditor.
I don't see that name on the new list? What's up with that?!?


Perhaps it was a test account? There do not appear to be any McAllisters in there now.
0
tboll

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 299
Reply with quote  #17 
One quick question...  The initial tally of assets was somewhere around $633K of metal and $160K of cash ($793K total).  This newest schedule list total assets at $$486K.  Does that mean that 40% of the assets have already been SPENT or is this just a "correction" to the total initial assets value?  Either way, it looks like the recoverable ratio is dropping faster than the total outstanding debt:

Original
Assets = .793M
Debt = 33M
Ratio = 2.4%

Currently
Assets = .486K
Debt = 24M
Ratio = 2.0%
0
JG

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 991
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tboll
One quick question...  The initial tally of assets was somewhere around $633K of metal and $160K of cash ($793K total).  This newest schedule list total assets at $$486K.  Does that mean that 40% of the assets have already been SPENT or is this just a "correction" to the total initial assets value?


Since Dan Bensimon and Joe Martinec refuse to communicate, it's hard to say exactly what the financials mean.

They do show cash of $179,132.14 at the end of August, which sounds about right.

They show $116,000.00 of inventory; that appears to be the inventory that was in the gun safe in Texas. It was listed in Schedule B as $116,000 insurance value. So the report does not appear to include the metal that is in the IDS vault (which presumably is still there).


0
hdwg

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #19 
I looked at the amended list of creditors and noticed that the unshipped catalog orders are listed as unsecured nonpriority claims.

Is there someone here who can help me understand why the unshipped catalog orders are not consumer deposit claims under section 507(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code up to the limit allowed by that section? 
0
robertmbeard

Member
Registered:
Posts: 83
Reply with quote  #20 
The amended list of creditors is provided by Martinec and Bensimon, representing Bullion Direct's characterization of claims, assets, etc...  It does not mean that the bankruptcy judge will agree with every detail in how they prefer to interpret things.  Of course, to resolve the issue of section 507(a)(7) for unshipped catalog orders, you need to press the issue with your Proof of Claim.  I did on mine, submitted back in August... 

The wheels of the U.S. legal system (not justice system, there is a big difference...) grind very slowly (glacially).  So, we likely won't know how the judge rules on these things until some time in 2016, after Martinec and Bensimon exhaust all remaining liquid assets of Bullion Direct... 
0
JG

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 991
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertmbeard
... Of course, to resolve the issue of section 507(a)(7) for unshipped catalog orders, you need to press the issue with your Proof of Claim.


My understanding is that it should be all or nothing; either all creditors are entitled to the 507(a)(7) priority, or none are. I don't believe they are going to give some creditors more money than others simply because they filed a Proof of Claim -- that goes completely against the intent of Chapter 11.

As for why, my understanding is that the law intended deposits to mean where someone places an order for something that is going to be delayed, and because of the risk to the company, they are required to put down a deposit.  Once the item comes in, they pay the rest. If the law was intended to apply to customer orders, I would imagine it would say something about orders and not deposits.

In either case, if that is allowed, it can skew things very heavily. For example, the amended list of creditors has 6,048 entries (of 7,509) under $2,500, totaling $1.99M. So if there were $2M in distributions, someone that had $2K of metal stored at Bullion Direct would get 100% of their money back, but someone who had $100K stored there would get just 2% back. If 507(a)(7) is not allowed, everyone would get 8% or so of their money back in that case (the $2K guy would get just $166, but the $100K guy would get $8,300).

Rather than filing Proof of Claim forms (which costs the estate money, which means all creditors get a bit less money), I would suggest contacting Joe Martinec (which has a cost, too, but if he answers that question 100 times he may be forced to only bill for it once).

0
robertmbeard

Member
Registered:
Posts: 83
Reply with quote  #22 
JG:

I agree with your expectation that the judge will likely treat all bullion creditors the same, and not penalize storage customers for accepting the risks of "free" storage.  However, the judge won't address any issues that are not pressed in court, through filings, Proofs of Claim, etc...  That's the reason I said to "press the issue" in a Proof of Claim.  I would not expect Martinec to give anyone an unbiased opinion...
0
rxtrom

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #23 
My name finally appeared on the list for the balance of an older Nucelo sale where I sent in metal but never withdrew the cash. There is a large balance (6k) of a more recent sale where I shipped it in and was signed for on the 17th but it does not appear on the list anywhere.. Hopefully they are still sorting that out?
0
JG

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 991
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rxtrom
My name finally appeared on the list for the balance of an older Nucelo sale where I sent in metal but never withdrew the cash. There is a large balance (6k) of a more recent sale where I shipped it in and was signed for on the 17th but it does not appear on the list anywhere.. Hopefully they are still sorting that out?


For the most part, the most recent list of creditors appears to be accurate.

Was that June 17 that it was signed for? If so, that was the day after Charles McAllister met with the bankruptcy attorney. It may be that he signed for the package, but it never got recorded as received.

Did you send it to Texas or Delaware? If Texas, it may be that it is part of some metal that was sitting there at the very end.

In either case, I would recommend contact Bullion Direct's attorney, Mr. Martinec, who seems to be handling discrepancies like this.

0
rxtrom

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG
Quote:
Originally Posted by rxtrom
My name finally appeared on the list for the balance of an older Nucelo sale where I sent in metal but never withdrew the cash. There is a large balance (6k) of a more recent sale where I shipped it in and was signed for on the 17th but it does not appear on the list anywhere.. Hopefully they are still sorting that out?


For the most part, the most recent list of creditors appears to be accurate.

Was that June 17 that it was signed for? If so, that was the day after Charles McAllister met with the bankruptcy attorney. It may be that he signed for the package, but it never got recorded as received.

Did you send it to Texas or Delaware? If Texas, it may be that it is part of some metal that was sitting there at the very end.

In either case, I would recommend contact Bullion Direct's attorney, Mr. Martinec, who seems to be handling discrepancies like this.



Sorry it was June 16th not the 17th.

Anyway it was sent to IDS of Delaware and signed for by a P.Pedcoe I contacted IDS on July 16 asking for it to be sent back to me and they refused so at least they acknowledged they had it. I will contact BD's attorney.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.