This page discusses the Motion to Convert to Chapter 7 and the Response. I feel that this page is biased (my bias), as I find it harder and harder to believe that Dan and Joe are qualified for this. These are the people who are charged with making creditors whole. Remember, I am not a lawyer, this is not intended to be a legal interpretation of the motion/response -- just my thoughts as if I were a teacher receiving papers from students.
2012 Bankruptcy MeetingDecember 7, 2015 4:45PM EST
Bullion Direct states "There is no evidence that BDI’s management wanted to file Chapter 11 in 2012."
As I am more frequently writing about post-bankruptcy Bullion Direct: Huh.
Charles (COO of Bullion Direct at the time) and a Bullion Direct attorney met with Joe on October 9, 2012, for the purpose of "giving an overview of the Chapter 11 process" with Bullion Direct being insolvent at the time. A week later, Bullion Direct sends a $100,000 retainer to their bankruptcy attorney, who used part of the money to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy (albeit several years later).
Summary of Response to Motion to Convert to Chapter 7December 6, 2015 7:10AM EST
I think this pretty much summarizes things:
The notes I have from the initial hearing show that it was the judge who initially brought up the Stanford case. Now go re-read #1 above!
In #3 they directly attack the members of the Unsecured Creditors' Committee. While Dan bills $300/hour and Joe bills $450/hour, the members of the UCC get paid nothing. And lost over a quarter million dollars between them. And have no bankruptcy training. How can you not expect them to be accusatory of a proposal from the mother of the person they feel stole their money?
And for #28 -- where the Unsecured Creditors Committee asks the court to convert to Chapter 7 -- the response sounds like someone grasping for straws.
Attacking Attorneys, Creditors, Even the Judge?December 6, 2015 7:10AM EST
The Response clearly attacked the attorney for the Unsecured Creditors' Committee (UCC). That much goes without saying.
However, it also attacks the UCC members: the three people with large claims that are volunteering their time to help get the best outcome from creditors. Part of their reason for not having a plan with Ms. Huseman yet is that the UCC members had an "accusatory attitude" and "talking over each other, eliminating any possibility of a constructive discussion."
One of the biggest attacks, in my mind, is that the Response (in response to the UCC stating that the case was like the Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford frauds) started with "It is difficult to imagine that any experienced lawyer would attempt to compare this case with notorious Ponzi-scheme1 cases, like Madoff and Stanford." In other words, they are saying that the UCC's attorney is inexperienced. But the irony is that I first heard Stanford mentioned in connection with this case in the first hearing (I believe that is before the UCC's attorney was involved), which appeared to have been spoken by the judge himself, saying that this case was similar to the Standford case. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the audio or transcript to fully verify this.
LackadaisicalDecember 6, 2015 7:10AM EST
I was once accused of being lackadaisical. I had to look up the definition: "feeling or showing a lack of interest or enthusiasm, carelessly lazy."
That's the word I think of when I see that over 40% of the pages of the Response were a copy of the Bullion Direct 2010 tax return. Remember, Dan and/or Joe implied (Docket 44) and clearly stated under oath (creditors' meeting) that no 2010 tax return had been filed. I told them one had indeed been filed, and a few days later, they decided to cut off communication with me. Almost immediately after I alerted them to the return, however, they ordered a copy of the return from the IRS. And got it.
Clearly, this is a vital piece of their response. But guess what? They got that 'ammunition' from me! Had they cut off their communications with me a few days earlier, they may never have found out about that they were missing a tax return they are using to defend themselves.
Adding insult to injury, they twice in the response refer to the $32M Net Operating Loss (NOL) on the 2010 tax return. Why do I point that out? Because on the Schedules they referred to the NOL as a potential assets a $17M NOL. They are now showing that they reported a valuation of an asset at half of its last known value! To be fair, though, a NOL is unlikely to have any true value, and it was listed as having an unknown value. But the biggest single number on the tax return was HALF of what it should have been. I alerted them to it, and yet they don't want my input.
So what does it say if one of the key pieces of information they use to defend themselves comes from someone they chose not to receive any more information from? That's the question that made the word lackadaisical come to mind.
(C) Copyright 2010-2016 About.Ag