[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  
Sanjisdad

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #1 
This is my line of thinking:

BD claims only about $644k in metals stored. 

Bullion Direct started up in around '98 or '99 and did Allocated storage.

Around 2012-2013 they quit buying metal to place into storage.

If courts were to pay customers who had metals in storage w/Legacy or ship them metal owed, wouldn't they start paying customers back IN ORDER Of PURCHASE FOR SETTLEMENT?STORAGE.

Seems like if our metals purchsed were allocated then specific people (NOT A POOL) are owed metal in the order it should have stored.

Looking at it another way, those of us who bought after say 2008 will get zilch because it doesn't take much stored bullion to exceed $664k.

                     OR

Is there some other way that the courts handle it?


Keep in mind that BD MUST have "borrowed' client's stored metal out of storage prior to 2012 in order for stored metal claims to be so high.


Any thoughts?



0
nobody

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #2 
If you have evidence that the company misappropriated or stole your property, you'd have strong evidence of a crime.

If you happened to have metal in storage in 2012, it would appear the new ToS doesn't apply to you.

If you were to present that evidence to your attorney, (s)he might have an opinion on your best next step.

0
JG

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 991
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanjisdad
If courts were to pay customers who had metals in storage w/Legacy or ship them metal owed, wouldn't they start paying customers back IN ORDER Of PURCHASE FOR SETTLEMENT?STORAGE.

Seems like if our metals purchsed were allocated then specific people (NOT A POOL) are owed metal in the order it should have stored.


The problem with this is that if the metal was truly allocated, then certain coins belong to certain people. And everybody should get their metal back.

If the metal was truly allocated, and most of it is not there, it sounds like a theft or loss of some sort occurred. If that happened, in theory, it should be a simple matter of seeing whose metal was lost/stolen. Those without metal lost/stolen would get it back.

The problem with send back in the order that it was stored is that (if these were indeed allocated accounts) if you got metal, you would be getting someone else's metal, and I do not see how the court could do that.

Of course, Bullion Direct is trying to claim that it was a pool (apparently, they think that "not pool metal" means "is pool metal"), as it appears they just stated in court documents that they believe the metal listed in the list of creditors is an "obligation to purchase or otherwise acquire" metal.

0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.