[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 saxster
In the case of those, (like me), who sent bullion already paid for to BullionDirect for storage and trading, neither, "creditor", nor "customer", nor "website claimant" are accurate categorizations of my actual status.  No, I regard myself as a "crime victim", however no crime has been determined, thus far.  So, having entered the Twilight Zone now, I must be a "future crime victim".  Or as in Minority Report, I am a victim waiting for my crime to occur.


Essentially, every storage customer (whether they shipped their own metal or bought it) believes that their metal was fully paid for, and being stored for them (e.g. thinking that the word "storage" referred to Bullion Direct actually storing something for them, "purchase" referring to Bullion Direct purchasing something, and "allocated" meaning "allocated", and "not pool" meaning "not pool").

If that was the case, then there would be some $20M+ of metal in the vault. There is not.

If Bullion Direct is correct (e.g. this was an unallocated or pool account), then you are an unsecured  creditor. If they are wrong, you are a secured creditor -- and your metal is, well, um, how can I say this without implying that someone did something that they could go to jail for?

This should really be getting the attention of national media. The LBMA has said for many years that with unallocated or pool accounts the customers is an unsecured creditor, with the "general stock" of the bankrupt company backing their claim (that ~$633K of metal in this case). And that allocated, "not pool" accounts were secured against assets that must actually exist. If someone like Forbes looked into it, they would call a spade a spade. I'm tempted to hire an attorney to simply say "Yes, there's no question that what happened [is or is not] fraud."

Sorry -- it was about time I vent (and I'm not owed anything).


0
tboll

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 299
Reply with quote  #17 
Now I think I get it... BD is not a PM dealer in the traditional sense but rather a PM Casino.  You enter it by depositing your metal or cash at the casino cage and they give you gold, silver, etc. or green chips (portfolio "tokens").  You play the game indefinitely and just keep your chips riding on the table or sitting next to you ready to play another hand.  Only in this casino there is no cashing out.  But you are welcome to continue playing until all your chips are gone.  As Dan said in Bankruptcy filing, we "customers" ruined the whole game because we wanted to cash out and go home.
0
shooter magaven

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 138
Reply with quote  #18 
Maybe I`m just a natural born fool, but the way I see it, every penny that I do NOT receive in settlement for my bullion/coins, is a penny stolen by Charles McAlister. As tboll says, a retailer not giving me the merchandise I paid for after I give them money for said merchandise is theft, regardless of Bankruptcies, terms of service, clauses, unforeseen circumstances, racketeering, death in the family, stupidity....I DON'T CARE!

It is theft, and If I`m not eventually made whole, I want to see this thieving ass clown in prison.
0
JG

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 991
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG

If Bullion Direct is correct (e.g. this was an unallocated or pool account), then you are an unsecured  creditor. If they are wrong, you are a secured creditor -- and your metal is, well, um, how can I say this without implying that someone did something that they could go to jail for?

This should really be getting the attention of national media. The LBMA has said for many years that with unallocated or pool accounts the customers is an unsecured creditor, with the "general stock" of the bankrupt company backing their claim (that ~$633K of metal in this case). And that allocated, "not pool" accounts were secured against assets that must actually exist. If someone like Forbes looked into it, they would call a spade a spade. I'm tempted to hire an attorney to simply say "Yes, there's no question that what happened [is or is not] fraud."

Sorry -- it was about time I vent (and I'm not owed anything).


Time for some cold, hard facts.

As recently at May 2013 -- half a year or so after the most recent change to the terms of service -- Bullion Direct stated "product is exclusively allocated to your account portfolio: you are purchasing individual products and not "pool" metal."

The LBMA states that Allocated Accounts "are opened when a customer requires title or ownership of specific bars. The client has full title to the metal in the account, with the dealer holding it on the client’s behalf. Clients’ holdings are identified in a weight list of bars, showing the unique bar number, gross weight, the assay or fineness of each bar and its fine weight. Credits or debits to the holding are linked to the physical movements of bars, to or from the client’s physical holding."

BullionVault states "Allocated gold is gold owned outright by an investor and is stored, under a safekeeping or custody arrangement, in a professional bullion vault. It is the property of the investor."

MoneyWeek states "Allocated accounts use your investment to buy and store physical gold in secure, insured warehouses. Legally, you are still the owner of the gold and the account provider is the custodian. ...Unallocated gold accounts don’t physically store your gold."

The International Monetary Fund states "Allocated gold is gold deposited under a safe-keeping or custody arrangement ... The account [of an Unallocated gold] holder does not hold title to physical gold but instead holds an unsecured claim against the account provider."

[/vent]


0
tboll

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 299
Reply with quote  #20 
Ah, JG, you have finally come over to the dark side.  [smile]
0
saxster

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 109
Reply with quote  #21 
These are significant points to consider, JG.  I've looked at the Wikipedia entry for LGMA here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_bullion_market

It seems obvious to me that "secured" creditors would have preference in the bankruptcy court in settlement claims over the "unsecured" creditors.  Is that a correct assumption?

If Bullion Direct has stated "product is exclusively allocated to your account portfolio: you are purchasing individual products and not "pool" metal.", then holders of metal said to be stored by BDI should be able to consider themselves and treated by the court as "secured" creditors?

It's difficult for me to imagine how BDI can have lured customers into doing business with them, using the promise of allocated accounts, and then when it was inconvenient for them to have it that way in bankruptcy proceedings, suddenly say it isn't so.  Is this a point that will be ruled on by the court?  Do I, or a group of "customers" in the same situation, need to have an attorney argue the point for us?

By the way, where did you get this quote?
"As recently at May 2013 -- half a year or so after the most recent change to the terms of service -- Bullion Direct stated "product is exclusively allocated to your account portfolio: you are purchasing individual products and not "pool" metal.""
0
JG

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 991
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxster

It seems obvious to me that "secured" creditors would have preference in the bankruptcy court in settlement claims over the "unsecured" creditors.  Is that a correct assumption?

If Bullion Direct has stated "product is exclusively allocated to your account portfolio: you are purchasing individual products and not "pool" metal.", then holders of metal said to be stored by BDI should be able to consider themselves and treated by the court as "secured" creditors?


Yes, normally secured creditors have preference over unsecured creditors. The problem is that there is ~$633K of metal backing ~$20M of claims. For every ounce of metal, there are somewhere around 30 people claiming it as their security.

That said, I doubt that if customers were treated as secured creditors it would have much effect on what they receive (since the vast majority of claims are unsecured).

Quote:
Originally Posted by saxster

It's difficult for me to imagine how BDI can have lured customers into doing business with them, using the promise of allocated accounts, and then when it was inconvenient for them to have it that way in bankruptcy proceedings, suddenly say it isn't so.  Is this a point that will be ruled on by the court?  Do I, or a group of "customers" in the same situation, need to have an attorney argue the point for us?


I've let the attorney and Mr. Bensimon know that these were advertised as allocated accounts, and let them decide whether they simply want to say that the *former management* took the position that they could not purchase the metal, or whether they want to make it sound like they also believe that position could be non-nonsensical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saxster

By the way, where did you get this quote?
"As recently at May 2013 -- half a year or so after the most recent change to the terms of service -- Bullion Direct stated "product is exclusively allocated to your account portfolio: you are purchasing individual products and not "pool" metal.""


https://web.archive.org/web/20130509024134/http://www.bulliondirect.com/aboutUs.do?view=storage

END OF MESSAGE - not sure why more is appearing.
0
saxster

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 109
Reply with quote  #23 
Whether or not I will be able to recover my losses from the bankruptcy court as a secured creditor, is less important to me than being recognized as secured creditor who was defrauded of his investment by the former CEO and management team of BDI.  When I am finally recognized for what I really am, a crime victim, then I will seek justice from the perpetrator of the crime to the fullest extent allowed by law.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.