[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
 
 
 


 
Poll Results
 
 Should we object to BD's motion to extend the deadline for filing POCs?
 Yes 6 85%
 No 1 14%
Total votes: 7. This poll has been closed.


Reply
  Author   Comment  
BDistheBestest

Member
Registered:
Posts: 34
Reply with quote  #1 
I'm sure that many of you received the following email from Bullion Direct:

"
The attached Motion to Extend Deadline for Filing Proofs of Claim by Creditors to January 25, 2016 (Doc#55) was filed on August 17, 2015.  Objections are due by September 8, 2015.  If there are no objections to the Motion, the Proposed Order attached to the Motion will be entered extending the deadline for anyone with a claim against BullionDirect, Inc. to file a Proof of Claim by January 25, 2016.  To review the Motion please click the following link:  Motion to Extend Deadline for Filing Proofs of Claim by Creditors

Sincerely,

 
Birdie White, CLA
Paralegal
Martinec, Winn & Vickers, P.C.
"

Given that Bullion Direct has shown its willingness to make it as difficult as possible for creditors to get their money back (by listing all claims as "disputed" and omitting many of them), this appears to me to be a simple stall tactic.  But I'm willing to hear other opinions as well - perhaps this would allow some creditors who haven't been notified or need more time to prepare proof of claim forms to submit theirs as well.

Should we object to this motion?  What would be the best way to do so?
0
roundhouse

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #2 
I took it as a way to be given time for BD to give out a full list of creditors, secure and unsecured which they have not done yet.
0
tsphillis

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #3 
The General Comments notice made it clear that the reason for the disputed status was the incomplete nature of the customer account information. My claim might be easy to quantify in dollar terms since there are only about 6 or 7 transactions involving less than 100 coins, plus a cash balance. Other people might have claim to thousands of coins or bullion bits...all acquired over hundreds of separate transactions. To fairly value each one, they need to pick through 10's of thousands of data points. It's only been 1 month since the official notice. I don't claim to know the details or extent of the task, but I know that forcing thousands of customers to file a Proof of Claim will cause more delays and more expense for BD. That would mean less money to divide up for customer claims.

I think rushing the proceedings might force this into chapter 7, if it's not headed there already. If they want to extend beyond Jan. 2016, then I would probably object. 6 months is enough time, I think.


0
BDistheBestest

Member
Registered:
Posts: 34
Reply with quote  #4 
It shouldn't require any sifting at all - every single BD customer's account always had their current cash balance, as well as any undelivered orders.  It would've been impossible to run the business otherwise.  It should be a simple copy/paste exercise from the fulfillment database to determine exactly who is owed what - hence, no reason for delay based on "complexity" in determining who is owed what.
0
shooter magaven

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 138
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDistheBestest
It shouldn't require any sifting at all - every single BD customer's account always had their current cash balance, as well as any undelivered orders.  It would've been impossible to run the business otherwise.  It should be a simple copy/paste exercise from the fulfillment database to determine exactly who is owed what - hence, no reason for delay based on "complexity" in determining who is owed what.


I did a cash draw in June for a completed nucleo sale. I only show one page (cash draws) on my on-line account that shows an order that is blank under 'fulfilled'. Doesn't even show "unfulfilled" anymore, just an empty space were a date/time stamp should be.

Other than that, there is nothing else showing that I had a cash balance.

Also, some of my stored metal was purchased over several years involving many transactions, and some was shipped as silver and later traded for gold, also involving many seperate transactions.

The point is, the amount of paper needed to show an unbroken " chain of custody" for each individual peice of metal is emormous. I'm not saying it cant be done, or that it is even necessary. But you get the idea of how convoluted and PIA it can become to file a PoC form. At any rate, it's not something I'm looking forward to.
0
harley_52

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 132
Reply with quote  #6 
Mine will be simple.  I paid them $9999 for "in stock" bullion and requested immediate delivery.  They acknowledged receipt, but kept the money and never sent the bullion.  I have all the documentation ready to go.  I also sent a "demand letter."  Still, I'm not shown on any lists, but am getting e-mail notifications on bankruptcy proceedings.  
0
tboll

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 299
Reply with quote  #7 
I have the same situation, shooter.  But perhaps the number of people that are in that "limbo state" are limited.  Within the "Order History" "Cash draw", the "Fill Date" should have a DATE, however for the limbo state, it is blank.  If there is a limited number of people in this unfilled state, then perhaps they could run a query that looks for "Fill Date" = NULL (rather than any date).  They might then have to manually do some work to trace those transactions back to customer (or set up a query that links the appropriate tables and they can do it automatically, but would require a bit schema and SQL knowledge.)
0
nobody

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #8 
harley_52 - I can ack your position.   A bit smaller and actually did get a partial fill before they went under - but only made it on one list of claimants, and not the latest list of creditors.

TBH, after 28 days for catalog, I'm not sure that legally the term 'creditor' is correct, so there may be some desire not to put into filing that classification (hence why I've not actually put in my PoC, I want to see if they get their act together before the deadline, and if so, what they say about people like me...).


0
harley_52

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 132
Reply with quote  #9 
@nobody....actually, I'm not sure the term "creditor" is appropriate either.  It seems to imply a voluntary "lending" of money to BDI which may be appropriate for customers who trusted them to store metal, or cash, for them.  I never intended to do either.  I paid them their asking price for a product they claimed to have "in stock" and asked that they deliver it immediately.  Since they chose to take my money and NOT deliver the bullion, it was much more akin to stealing (as in thief) than to borrowing (as in debtor).  Is "victim" an appropriate category for a Proof Of Claim form?
0
nobody

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #10 
OPINION

I think they should just be blocked off as "Unfilled customer orders which appear to be in breach of the ToS at the time of the BK" - basically, unfilled catalog stale.  There's reasonable grounds to believe that is a category that has been clearly and obviously wronged in a fashion that doesn't to me appear to be legal by ToS or Texas state law, and it's at least me - and probably you too.

I think the first 2k+change of that actually is what gets priority in a claim, if I understand it properly, and the rest (if any) goes to the remainder of the UCC pool.

But that would require admitting to criminal wrongdoing, and it's probably not helpful for JM's client to put in writing.
0
robertmbeard

Member
Registered:
Posts: 83
Reply with quote  #11 
While a lawyer will likely tell you that everything can be litigated, including the definition of common words, my reading of the Proof of Claim instructions led me to conclude that the words "debtor" and "creditor" are being used by the court in their most generic definitions.  In this case, "debtor" [BDI] owes people money and/or other items;  "creditor" [us] are the people BDI owes money and/or other items to.  I had originally had similar hesitation as harley_52 about filing the PoC without a classification of "crime victim" on the form;  however, my reading of the instructions led me to conclude that "creditor" was not being equated with "lender", which would require our permission/intent to lend BDI money or metals.  Since the BK court doesn't specifically address crimes and only looks at liquidation or restructuring of the company and distribution of any partial restitution to the "creditors," I don't see filing the PoC as a legal annulment of your rights as a likely crime victim in the criminal courts outside of BK court...

Again, I am not a lawyer nor ever hope to stoop that low.  So, take my free opinions for what they may be worth...
0
nobody

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #12 
And if the deadline should come and I don't feel like my interests are represented, I'll make a claim.

Until then, I'm not doing their work for them :-)
0
harley_52

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 132
Reply with quote  #13 
Pretty much my plan as well, @nobody.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.