This seems right to me. Did anyone actually think that Amex had a statutory (as opposed to a contractual) obligation to refund for wines not delivered?Terry H a r r i s wrote:Tenth Circuit decision today, upholding Colorado USDC adverse ruling against wine purchaser. Attached.
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
- Neal.Mollen
- GCC Member
- Posts: 40016
- Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 14 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
I don't have to speak; she defends me
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
- Al Osterheld
- GCC Member
- Posts: 7655
- Joined: March 15th, 2009, 5:47 am
- Location: SF Bay
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 26 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
Yeah, seemed pretty open and shut. The same customer filed some interesting requests in the bankruptcy court, among other things that he was entitled to receive any wine he ordered that was in the warehouse, even if there were earlier purchasers who had been told the wine was theirs.
-Al
-Al
-
- Posts: 1977
- Joined: April 27th, 2010, 5:59 am
- Been thanked: 6 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
Forgive this question from legal ignorance, but don't statutes protect contracts? I should say that I haven't read my credit card contract that far into the weeds, but I don't remember its acting as a guarantee of all payments made no matter how long ago in the past.Neal.Mollen wrote:This seems right to me. Did anyone actually think that Amex had a statutory (as opposed to a contractual) obligation to refund for wines not delivered?Terry H a r r i s wrote:Tenth Circuit decision today, upholding Colorado USDC adverse ruling against wine purchaser. Attached.
- Neal.Mollen
- GCC Member
- Posts: 40016
- Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 14 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
Can I also say . . . one million dollars in purchases from PC? That has to be for resale, no?Al Osterheld wrote:Yeah, seemed pretty open and shut. The same customer filed some interesting requests in the bankruptcy court, among other things that he was entitled to receive any wine he ordered that was in the warehouse, even if there were earlier purchasers who had been told the wine was theirs.
-Al
I don't have to speak; she defends me
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
- Neal.Mollen
- GCC Member
- Posts: 40016
- Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 14 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
That's sort of a difficult question to answer in the abstract. Most of the law of contracts is "common law," decisional law from centuries of decided cases. The Uniform Commercial Code, the bankruptcy laws, the laws cited in the decision are examples of statutes that can have a direct impact on the enforceability of contracts though.Jonathan Loesberg wrote:Forgive this question from legal ignorance, but don't statutes protect contracts? I should say that I haven't read my credit card contract that far into the weeds, but I don't remember its acting as a guarantee of all payments made no matter how long ago in the past.Neal.Mollen wrote:This seems right to me. Did anyone actually think that Amex had a statutory (as opposed to a contractual) obligation to refund for wines not delivered?Terry H a r r i s wrote:Tenth Circuit decision today, upholding Colorado USDC adverse ruling against wine purchaser. Attached.
I don't have to speak; she defends me
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
- Al Osterheld
- GCC Member
- Posts: 7655
- Joined: March 15th, 2009, 5:47 am
- Location: SF Bay
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 26 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
I'm guessing he was going for very high value wine. Still impressive.Neal.Mollen wrote:Can I also say . . . one million dollars in purchases from PC? That has to be for resale, no?Al Osterheld wrote:Yeah, seemed pretty open and shut. The same customer filed some interesting requests in the bankruptcy court, among other things that he was entitled to receive any wine he ordered that was in the warehouse, even if there were earlier purchasers who had been told the wine was theirs.
-Al
-Al
- Al Osterheld
- GCC Member
- Posts: 7655
- Joined: March 15th, 2009, 5:47 am
- Location: SF Bay
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 26 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
My recollection is that his filings in the bankruptcy court were done without the help of an attorney, wonder if this was the same. Seems unusual with $1M at stake.
-Al
-Al
- Neal.Mollen
- GCC Member
- Posts: 40016
- Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 14 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
Maybe he is a BK atty. He was represented in the 10th Cir
I don't have to speak; she defends me
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
- Al Osterheld
- GCC Member
- Posts: 7655
- Joined: March 15th, 2009, 5:47 am
- Location: SF Bay
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 26 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
He's apparently a prominent MD who made a lot of money in private practice, then started an HMO that grew and acquired or merged with other HMOs. Apparently, he ordered $1.7M of wine, nearly 2500 bottles, and did not receive it.
He's also sued the insurance company who covered his home collection. They claim they're not liable because he never received the wine.
-Al
He's also sued the insurance company who covered his home collection. They claim they're not liable because he never received the wine.
-Al
- Don Cornwell
- GCC Member
- Posts: 1729
- Joined: June 10th, 2010, 1:24 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Been thanked: 12 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
BarryBarry P wrote:Wow. This is no small thing. Seems to lead one to conclude that, if you pay your bills on time and don't carry balances, you have no recourse against credit card companies for goods set for future delivery and that are never delivered. CC companies must be doing a happy dance.Terry H a r r i s wrote:Tenth Circuit decision today, upholding Colorado USDC adverse ruling against wine purchaser. Attached.
Don't read too much into this decision. I'm not sure why the only claim discussed in the decision is the one based on the Fair Credit Billing Act. I wasn't even aware that there might be a section of that Act that would be potentially applicable to non-delivered goods.
Most of the major credit card companies have customer service agreements which provide for some type of buyer protection plan. Those buyer protection plans, which are contracts, basically promise your money back if the merchant doesn't deliver the goods (and in some cases there are some warranty type protections too.) If the credit card company fails to honor the terms fot its buyer protection program, they can be sued for breach of contract. However, some of the buyer protection programs have a maximum length of time after the purchase (or after payment of the statement) that the card holder can make a claim. I know in the case of Chase, they had a written policy limiting refunds for non-delivery to 540 days. Some people filed claims related to Premier Cru after 540 days and Chase told them no.
It could be that the reason that there wasn't any discussion about claims for breach of contract in the case is that the refund claims were asserted by Ms. Hassan after the expiration of the time provided in the contract (e.g. after 540 days.) We know that millions was paid out by the credit card companies to refund customers for undelivered wine. I suspect that the lawyer in the reported case got creative and went looking for a statutory remedy after his client was told no on his claims for $1 million in payments to Premier Cru.
Don Cornwell
Oxidized Burgs Wiki
http://www.gdeschamps.net/wiki/doku.php?id=start
Oxidized Burgs Wiki
http://www.gdeschamps.net/wiki/doku.php?id=start
- Al Osterheld
- GCC Member
- Posts: 7655
- Joined: March 15th, 2009, 5:47 am
- Location: SF Bay
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 26 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
I looked back through the docket, and I was mistaken. He was represented by counsel in his filings in the BK court.Al Osterheld wrote:My recollection is that his filings in the bankruptcy court were done without the help of an attorney, wonder if this was the same. Seems unusual with $1M at stake.
-Al
- Don Cornwell
- GCC Member
- Posts: 1729
- Joined: June 10th, 2010, 1:24 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Been thanked: 12 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
Your question is too general to be able to easily respond. Different types of claims have different statutes of limitation.Corey N. wrote:Does a 2 year statute of limitations apply for the trustee to file a lawsuit?
Asking for a friend.
But if you are asking about 90-day preference claims, the statute of limitations in this case was two years from the date of the filing of the Petition, so the statute of limitations for those claims expired on January 8, 2018.
The statute of limitations for fraudulent conveyance claims under Federal Law (Bankruptcy Code Section 548) also expired at the same time.
The statute of limitations for fraudulent conveyance claims asserted under California law has technically not expired. However, the Federal two-year tolling period for the filing of a claim under state law by virtue of the Bankruptcy Petition also expired on January 8, 2018. So at this point, any fraudulent conveyance claim that might be asserted would have to be based upon transactions occurring a maximum of seven years prior to the date that the complaint is filed (i.e. for a complaint that is filed today, the transaction date cutoff would be January 30, 2011).
Don Cornwell
Oxidized Burgs Wiki
http://www.gdeschamps.net/wiki/doku.php?id=start
Oxidized Burgs Wiki
http://www.gdeschamps.net/wiki/doku.php?id=start
- SteveC
- Posts: 2396
- Joined: August 15th, 2011, 11:04 am
- Location: Boston, but missing NY from time to time
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
If the statute of limitations expired on the 2-year statute on 1/8/18, but they filed a complaint on 12/15/17, would that trump the statute of limitations expiration?
Ste ve C o yl e
""Too Much Wine, Too Little Time"
"Life is Too Short to Drink Bad Wine."
"Damn You GC, You Have Cost Me Loads of Money by Introducing Me to This Obsession!!"
""Too Much Wine, Too Little Time"
"Life is Too Short to Drink Bad Wine."
"Damn You GC, You Have Cost Me Loads of Money by Introducing Me to This Obsession!!"
- John Morris
- GCC Member
- Posts: 18600
- Joined: June 21st, 2009, 2:09 pm
- Location: Gotham
- Has thanked: 22 times
- Been thanked: 59 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
"Trump" the statute of limitation? The SOL is a deadline, so if the complaint was filed before the deadline, there's no problem.SteveC wrote:If the statute of limitations expired on the 2-year statute on 1/8/18, but they filed a complaint on 12/15/17, would that trump the statute of limitations expiration?
Not my circus, not my monkeys.
- John Morris
- GCC Member
- Posts: 18600
- Joined: June 21st, 2009, 2:09 pm
- Location: Gotham
- Has thanked: 22 times
- Been thanked: 59 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
You may be thinking of the contracts clause in the Constitution, which bars states from passing laws that "impair the obligation of contracts." But that doesn't mandate any particularly contract/agreement terms. It's just a protection against laws that override the terms the parties agreed to (and it's far from absolute, as interpreted over the years). So it all comes down to what the contract says.Jonathan Loesberg wrote:Forgive this question from legal ignorance, but don't statutes protect contracts? I should say that I haven't read my credit card contract that far into the weeds, but I don't remember its acting as a guarantee of all payments made no matter how long ago in the past.Neal.Mollen wrote:This seems right to me. Did anyone actually think that Amex had a statutory (as opposed to a contractual) obligation to refund for wines not delivered?Terry H a r r i s wrote:Tenth Circuit decision today, upholding Colorado USDC adverse ruling against wine purchaser. Attached.
What Neal is saying is that it seems unlikely that there's a statute that imposes an obligation on credit card companies to make refunds for undelivered wines if the contract doesn't do that.
Not my circus, not my monkeys.
- J a y H a c k
- GCC Member
- Posts: 14218
- Joined: May 29th, 2009, 9:59 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 19 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
And Neal would be right, but I'm not allowed to say that in this thread because the snowflakes don't like that opinion, so I have stayed out for a long time. Just dropped in to catch up because we were discussing retrieval and fraud claims in bankruptcy.John Morris wrote: . . . What Neal is saying is that it seems unlikely that there's a statute that imposes an obligation on credit card companies to make refunds for undelivered wines if the contract doesn't do that.
Yes, that's a DM of 1978 Mouton!
You can read my Financial Institutions Law Blog at https://www.gdblaw.com/blog?practiceID=4985.
You can read my Financial Institutions Law Blog at https://www.gdblaw.com/blog?practiceID=4985.
- John Morris
- GCC Member
- Posts: 18600
- Joined: June 21st, 2009, 2:09 pm
- Location: Gotham
- Has thanked: 22 times
- Been thanked: 59 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
FYI, The Wine Spectator just published an update on the clawbacks by Peter Heller.
Not my circus, not my monkeys.
- K John Joseph
- GCC Member
- Posts: 8037
- Joined: June 8th, 2011, 11:55 am
- Location: Dallas
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 6 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
Commercial bankruptcy lawyer here.Don Cornwell wrote:Your question is too general to be able to easily respond. Different types of claims have different statutes of limitation.Corey N. wrote:Does a 2 year statute of limitations apply for the trustee to file a lawsuit?
Asking for a friend.
But if you are asking about 90-day preference claims, the statute of limitations in this case was two years from the date of the filing of the Petition, so the statute of limitations for those claims expired on January 8, 2018.
The statute of limitations for fraudulent conveyance claims under Federal Law (Bankruptcy Code Section 548) also expired at the same time.
The statute of limitations for fraudulent conveyance claims asserted under California law has technically not expired. However, the Federal two-year tolling period for the filing of a claim under state law by virtue of the Bankruptcy Petition also expired on January 8, 2018. So at this point, any fraudulent conveyance claim that might be asserted would have to be based upon transactions occurring a maximum of seven years prior to the date that the complaint is filed (i.e. for a complaint that is filed today, the transaction date cutoff would be January 30, 2011).
Don's assessment of limitations is accurate. Section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a Trustee to pursue state law fraudulent conveyance actions of recipients of transfers from the Debtor. Most states incorporate the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, which has a 4 year reach back. Most states have a little wrinkle that can actually go back a little further in certain circumstances where a conveyance was concealed. But generally speaking, Don is on the money. In almost every instance here, I'm guessing folks will be arguing a defense of reasonably equivalent value in an effort to mitigate potential liability. I've not dived into this case, but has there been a ruling in which the Judge determined the Premiere Cru scheme was, as a matter of law, a Ponzi scheme? That can significantly change the parties' respective burdens of proof.
J0hn-J-K4ne
- K John Joseph
- GCC Member
- Posts: 8037
- Joined: June 8th, 2011, 11:55 am
- Location: Dallas
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 6 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
This is a fascinating thread and I can't believe I'm just wading into this. Let me give a little info on this process, as I've represented a number of Trustees and have asserted quite a few suits for fraudulent conveyances and preference suits, including in the Steak & Ale and Bennigans case a few years back.
The Trustee does, as Neal pointed out, have a fiduciary duty to maximize the estate. The Trustee's goal is to get as much as possible in, and then to distribute as much as possible out. That is in part because teh Trustee is paid on a statutory sliding scale that rewards massive distributions. The Trustee's attorneys are often paid on a contingency fee basis for Chapter 5 causes of action (preference suits and fraudulent transfer suits), so they want more in too. Sometimes they are hourly, and so more suits means more work means more pay.
In some cases, pursuing chapter 5 causes of action hurts unsecured creditors. If there are not egregious transfers and everyone got hurt a bit, you're clawing money back, reducing it by 40%, then redistributing it. We call that "rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic." In other situations, it does make a material difference on how much general unsecured creditors actually recover. Everyone gets the same pro-rata distribution rate whereas without these clawback actions some folks get a 100% recovery while most get nothing. The result is inequity no matter what, but this is what Congress decided was most equitable.
Quick note on pre-petition wages. Pre-petition wages are prioritized over general unsecured claims, up to a statutory cap of about $12.5K. Those claims will get resolved during the case. If someone had a massive salary, they'd have a GUC for the amount in excess of the statutory limit. In some cases where expertise is critical to maximizing the estate, a Trustee may retain the services of an employee or third party in order to preserve value. That's all approved by a court after motion and opportunity to object, though, so there can't be too much grousing if that's taken place.
Some of these clawback suits can go back pretty damn far depending on how the Trustee is pushing its suits. I've not read any of these, but some causes of action under the UFTA have a hypothetical creditor and a discovery rule issue. We saw this in the Stanford case in which the Trustee used those avenues to pursue transfers that took place more than 4 years prior to the petition date. As a result, if PC was committing fraud way back then, but it was not discovered and could not reasonably have been discovered until relatively recently (think 4 years before the petition date), then the Trustee could arguably go back even further. Those are tough cases to successfully prove up and will most likely settle if a motion to dismiss is unsuccessful. Others may be focused on when the wine actually shipped, not when the wine was purchased. The transfer in question is from the Debtor to the buyer, not vice versa. So when you paid PC money doesn't move the needle. One can make a counter argument that the "transfer" should really be considered at the time the deal was cut, as that is when the parties were bound to their obligations and that's tradition in this market. Most courts at least on first glance look to when the "transfer' took place. That is typically because fraudulent conveyances include a contemporaneous give and take, or at least reasonably contemporaneous give and take. You don't look back and say, $1MM for that house was a bad deal because it's now worth $5MM. You say $1MM was reasonably equivalent value because, at the time, $1MM was the FMV for that house.
The delayed delivery issues and potential increase in value for these products is likely to create some confusion on how to proceed, and I'd wager that most of these will settle.
The Trustee does, as Neal pointed out, have a fiduciary duty to maximize the estate. The Trustee's goal is to get as much as possible in, and then to distribute as much as possible out. That is in part because teh Trustee is paid on a statutory sliding scale that rewards massive distributions. The Trustee's attorneys are often paid on a contingency fee basis for Chapter 5 causes of action (preference suits and fraudulent transfer suits), so they want more in too. Sometimes they are hourly, and so more suits means more work means more pay.
In some cases, pursuing chapter 5 causes of action hurts unsecured creditors. If there are not egregious transfers and everyone got hurt a bit, you're clawing money back, reducing it by 40%, then redistributing it. We call that "rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic." In other situations, it does make a material difference on how much general unsecured creditors actually recover. Everyone gets the same pro-rata distribution rate whereas without these clawback actions some folks get a 100% recovery while most get nothing. The result is inequity no matter what, but this is what Congress decided was most equitable.
Quick note on pre-petition wages. Pre-petition wages are prioritized over general unsecured claims, up to a statutory cap of about $12.5K. Those claims will get resolved during the case. If someone had a massive salary, they'd have a GUC for the amount in excess of the statutory limit. In some cases where expertise is critical to maximizing the estate, a Trustee may retain the services of an employee or third party in order to preserve value. That's all approved by a court after motion and opportunity to object, though, so there can't be too much grousing if that's taken place.
Some of these clawback suits can go back pretty damn far depending on how the Trustee is pushing its suits. I've not read any of these, but some causes of action under the UFTA have a hypothetical creditor and a discovery rule issue. We saw this in the Stanford case in which the Trustee used those avenues to pursue transfers that took place more than 4 years prior to the petition date. As a result, if PC was committing fraud way back then, but it was not discovered and could not reasonably have been discovered until relatively recently (think 4 years before the petition date), then the Trustee could arguably go back even further. Those are tough cases to successfully prove up and will most likely settle if a motion to dismiss is unsuccessful. Others may be focused on when the wine actually shipped, not when the wine was purchased. The transfer in question is from the Debtor to the buyer, not vice versa. So when you paid PC money doesn't move the needle. One can make a counter argument that the "transfer" should really be considered at the time the deal was cut, as that is when the parties were bound to their obligations and that's tradition in this market. Most courts at least on first glance look to when the "transfer' took place. That is typically because fraudulent conveyances include a contemporaneous give and take, or at least reasonably contemporaneous give and take. You don't look back and say, $1MM for that house was a bad deal because it's now worth $5MM. You say $1MM was reasonably equivalent value because, at the time, $1MM was the FMV for that house.
The delayed delivery issues and potential increase in value for these products is likely to create some confusion on how to proceed, and I'd wager that most of these will settle.
J0hn-J-K4ne
- John Morris
- GCC Member
- Posts: 18600
- Joined: June 21st, 2009, 2:09 pm
- Location: Gotham
- Has thanked: 22 times
- Been thanked: 59 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
I don't know if the bankruptcy court has entered any such finding, but in his plea agreement Fox admitted that, from at least 2010, "a significant part" of PC's business consisted of sales of "phantom wines" that had never been ordered, and that he had begun creating false purchase orders as early as 1993 or 1994. He said PC sold $20 million of such wines between 2010 and 2015 (Plea Agreement, pp. 4, 6). I posted on those clauses someplace pages back that I can't find now.K John Joseph wrote:Commercial bankruptcy lawyer here.Don Cornwell wrote:Your question is too general to be able to easily respond. Different types of claims have different statutes of limitation.Corey N. wrote:Does a 2 year statute of limitations apply for the trustee to file a lawsuit?
Asking for a friend.
But if you are asking about 90-day preference claims, the statute of limitations in this case was two years from the date of the filing of the Petition, so the statute of limitations for those claims expired on January 8, 2018.
The statute of limitations for fraudulent conveyance claims under Federal Law (Bankruptcy Code Section 548) also expired at the same time.
The statute of limitations for fraudulent conveyance claims asserted under California law has technically not expired. However, the Federal two-year tolling period for the filing of a claim under state law by virtue of the Bankruptcy Petition also expired on January 8, 2018. So at this point, any fraudulent conveyance claim that might be asserted would have to be based upon transactions occurring a maximum of seven years prior to the date that the complaint is filed (i.e. for a complaint that is filed today, the transaction date cutoff would be January 30, 2011).
Don's assessment of limitations is accurate. Section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a Trustee to pursue state law fraudulent conveyance actions of recipients of transfers from the Debtor. Most states incorporate the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, which has a 4 year reach back. Most states have a little wrinkle that can actually go back a little further in certain circumstances where a conveyance was concealed. But generally speaking, Don is on the money. In almost every instance here, I'm guessing folks will be arguing a defense of reasonably equivalent value in an effort to mitigate potential liability. I've not dived into this case, but has there been a ruling in which the Judge determined the Premiere Cru scheme was, as a matter of law, a Ponzi scheme? That can significantly change the parties' respective burdens of proof.
I would add one thing: Reading this thread a few weeks ago and talking to Peter Heller when he was working on his story, I think some customers are confused about what the relevant date is here. It sometimes seems that they think the statute of limitations applies to their purchase date, which might be five or ten years ago -- or at least that it's unfair to go after them over purchases they paid for a long, long time ago. It appears that some people don't understand that the SOL for the clawbacks runs from the time the customers received something from the store -- partial or full delivery of the order, a refund or a substitution. Those are the preferential distributions of assets the trustee is trying to reverse.
Not my circus, not my monkeys.
- J a y H a c k
- GCC Member
- Posts: 14218
- Joined: May 29th, 2009, 9:59 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 19 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
John:
Under the UFTA, why doesn't a PC purchaser always give reasonably equivalent value when the commentary states that the satisfaction of an antecedent debt constitutes value, unless the argument is that PC sold for much less than FMV.
Under the UFTA, why doesn't a PC purchaser always give reasonably equivalent value when the commentary states that the satisfaction of an antecedent debt constitutes value, unless the argument is that PC sold for much less than FMV.
Yes, that's a DM of 1978 Mouton!
You can read my Financial Institutions Law Blog at https://www.gdblaw.com/blog?practiceID=4985.
You can read my Financial Institutions Law Blog at https://www.gdblaw.com/blog?practiceID=4985.
-
- GCC Member
- Posts: 1676
- Joined: April 27th, 2010, 4:35 pm
- Location: University Place Wa.
- Has thanked: 1 time
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
Thanks to all the attorneys for their thoughts, fascinating read. ![cheers [cheers.gif]](./images/smilies/cheers.gif)
![cheers [cheers.gif]](./images/smilies/cheers.gif)
- K John Joseph
- GCC Member
- Posts: 8037
- Joined: June 8th, 2011, 11:55 am
- Location: Dallas
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 6 times
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
Jay,J a y H a c k wrote:John:
Under the UFTA, why doesn't a PC purchaser always give reasonably equivalent value when the commentary states that the satisfaction of an antecedent debt constitutes value, unless the argument is that PC sold for much less than FMV.
The lawyers representing defendants have to make that argument. I referenced the Stanford case above. UFTA was spotlighted in that case when the 5th Circuit issued a preposterously appalling ruling on fraudulent conveyances in ponzi cases. The case was eventually submitted to the Texas Supreme Court for further clarification, and I think they got it right. The situation is a little different, but the case ruling should be quoted because it really underscores the elements of the reasonably equivalent value defense under the UFTA. Also note that in a Ponzi scheme there is a presumption of actual fraud, which triggers some claims under UFTA not typically available. Proving up a defense to an actual fraud case involves more elements than in a 'constructive fraud' case. I haven't looked into the PC Trustee's suits much, but he probably has a chance at actual fraud claims given the Ponzie-sounding nature of this case. Constructive fraud eliminates the need for the defendant to prove up the good faith/arms length part.
This is from a nice article which you can find here. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... 6645dc8fd0. Our firm addressed this in a CLE presentation at the big annual Jay Westbrook Bankruptcy Conference held at the University of Texas. I can probably find some of those materials as well, but the quote above covers the meat.“Reasonably equivalent value” as a defense to a fraudulent transfer suit “can be satisfied with evidence that the transferee (1) fully performed under a lawful, arm’s-length contract for fair market value, (2) provided consideration that had objective value at the time of the transaction, and (3) made the exchange in the ordinary course of the transferee’s business,” held the Supreme Court of Texas on April 1, 2016, in response to a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Janvey v. Golf Channel, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2016 WL 1268188, at *2 (Tex. April 1, 2016), responding to Janvey v. Golf Channel Inc., 792 F.3d 539, 547 (5th Cir. 2015) (“Golf Channel II”). The Fifth Circuit, on March 11, 2015, had initially held an advertising firm in an SEC receiver’s Texas fraudulent transfer suit liable for $5.9 million it had received in good faith from a Ponzi scheme debtor. Janvey v. Golf Channel Inc., 780 F.3d 641, 646-47 (5th Cir. 2015) (“Golf Channel I”) (advertising services had “no value” to Ponzi scheme creditors although services might be “quite valuable” to creditors of a legitimate business).
I'd use this case quote to hammer one key issue: It's about the time of the transaction, not necessarily the time of the transfer. In the case cited above, Stanford bought advertising from the Golf Channel. Stanford was a Ponzi scheme. The Trustee, Janvey, tried to claw back millions paid by Stanford to The Golf Channel for ad time, arguing that there was no reasonably equivalent value because advertising for a Ponzi scheme is worthless and likely cost investors money. Here you have a Debtor pre-pay and the ad time later. The script is flipped, but the case quote holds weight. The consideration at the time of the transaction should be whether the transferee, the buyer, fully performed. Here, you pre-paid. Consideration is objective, hard money, on the market for futures.
The Trustee's attack has to be that the value of the wines that PC had in its possession and that it shipped out years after the purchase price had increased in value to the point that they were disproportionately more valuable than the amount of money paid for the wines. So think about the equities at play here from the Trustee's perspective. You spend $10,000 and you receive wine with a value of $15,000 2 years later. With just one case it doesn't seem that bad. But let's extrapolate that out, which is what the Trustee will do since the Trustee is looking at all possible cases. Debtor receives $50,000,000 and shells out wine worth $75,000,000. Even if you claw back only the difference, you now have $25,000,000 in funds to reallocate to unsecured creditors who received nothing. Downside to the recipient of the wine? They paid then-market prices for the wines that they bought. Sure, the recipients lose the benefit of their bargain (why else buy futures unless you want to secure an allocation and lock in what you expect will be a very favorable price v. market). But the Trustee has his fiduciary duty and his goal is to distribute cash and plead "equities."
The issue with this type of litigation is that, on its face, the Trustee can present a legitimate claim. The transferee, then, has the burden of proving up its defense. So that guarantees that the defendant is going to spend money. The issue becomes how much. Trustees get tremendous leverage simply because litigating these suits is so damned expensive for defendants. That will enable the Trustee to sue and settle, sue and settle, build a war chest, then take one or two home run shots as late as possible, once cash is already in the door and there is no "law of the case" to devalue his/her big claims.
As an aside, I might argue that the time value of money must be considered, and $10,000 with compounding interest at a reasonable rate of return for a few years would narrow the gap in value. I'd also be considering getting a large group of defendants together and hiring a valuation service as a consulting expert to mark the delivered wines to market. It would reduce costs per defendant if you could swing it, and since it's a consulting expert only you'd not have disclosure obligations if the results weren't ideal (though I'd probably confirm that before going in that direction

J0hn-J-K4ne
- SteveC
- Posts: 2396
- Joined: August 15th, 2011, 11:04 am
- Location: Boston, but missing NY from time to time
Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
Not so fascinating when you are in the middle of itMike Maguire wrote:Thanks to all the attorneys for their thoughts, fascinating read.
![[pile-on.gif] pileon](./images/smilies/pile-on.gif)
![[head-bang.gif] [head-bang.gif]](./images/smilies/head-bang.gif)
Ste ve C o yl e
""Too Much Wine, Too Little Time"
"Life is Too Short to Drink Bad Wine."
"Damn You GC, You Have Cost Me Loads of Money by Introducing Me to This Obsession!!"
""Too Much Wine, Too Little Time"
"Life is Too Short to Drink Bad Wine."
"Damn You GC, You Have Cost Me Loads of Money by Introducing Me to This Obsession!!"
- Steven Miller
- Posts: 2379
- Joined: December 14th, 2009, 7:23 am
- Location: Portland, OR
- Don Cornwell
- GCC Member
- Posts: 1729
- Joined: June 10th, 2010, 1:24 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Been thanked: 12 times
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
Arv:
A few have been settled and many are still pending and going through discovery.
Don Cornwell
Oxidized Burgs Wiki
http://www.gdeschamps.net/wiki/doku.php?id=start
Oxidized Burgs Wiki
http://www.gdeschamps.net/wiki/doku.php?id=start
-
- Monopole Crü
- Posts: 315
- Joined: December 22nd, 2009, 10:38 am
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
I find it interesting that no one went after Premier Cru's credit card processing bank. My understanding is the statue of limitations is up and they were sweating bullets about being sued. One of their employees was terminated in regards to one of the release of a lien. Or so I have been told.
- Victor Hong
- Posts: 20376
- Joined: May 30th, 2009, 1:34 pm
- Location: Banana Republic of ‘Merica
- Been thanked: 25 times
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
Would a non-California resident have needed to file civil suit in California?
WineHunter.
- Randy Bowman
- GCC Member
- Posts: 10363
- Joined: January 27th, 2009, 2:23 pm
- Location: Napa, CA
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
Probably a con job. No telling where the links will really take you. The original Premiere Cru web site no longer exists. There are several companies that have similar names like Premiere Cru Wine in NYC. There is no www.primiercru.net website.
IN THE BUSINESS SHILL: An associate of a person selling goods, who pretends no association to the seller and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer.
- Victor Hong
- Posts: 20376
- Joined: May 30th, 2009, 1:34 pm
- Location: Banana Republic of ‘Merica
- Been thanked: 25 times
- J a y H a c k
- GCC Member
- Posts: 14218
- Joined: May 29th, 2009, 9:59 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
Whois.com shows Premiercru.net to be a registered domain with John Fox as the administrative contact. They do not have to have a website. However, I would still bet 99% that it is a scam' maybe 99.99%. Spoofs and scams like this ordinarily involve diversions of what appear to be hot links. You click on the email address hot link to respond and instead of going to sales@premiercru.net, your email actually goes to Thief-in-Nigeria.com.Randy Bowman wrote: ↑February 9th, 2019, 7:23 pm Probably a con job. No telling where the links will really take you. The original Premiere Cru web site no longer exists. There are several companies that have similar names like Premiere Cru Wine in NYC. There is no www.primiercru.net website.
Yes, that's a DM of 1978 Mouton!
You can read my Financial Institutions Law Blog at https://www.gdblaw.com/blog?practiceID=4985.
You can read my Financial Institutions Law Blog at https://www.gdblaw.com/blog?practiceID=4985.
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
lol - it's not a scam. it's a real response from whatever server is still alive. it's my old shitty yahoo account that gets spoofed all the time and sends emails, so one of them was sent to james' old account and i got that auto-reply. interesting that some email service is still alive, and presumably being paid for.
you can test this too, just send an email to: james@premiercru.net and you'll get the same auto response.
jay - stay away from all betting.
you can test this too, just send an email to: james@premiercru.net and you'll get the same auto response.
jay - stay away from all betting.
Yaacov (ITB)
- R@y.Tupp@+sch
- Posts: 2764
- Joined: February 19th, 2009, 8:22 am
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
Maybe I'll still get my Mylar Bags.
Killer, Staggering, Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor ®
- Al Osterheld
- GCC Member
- Posts: 7655
- Joined: March 15th, 2009, 5:47 am
- Location: SF Bay
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 26 times
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
FWIW, while I stopped following it a long time ago, the trustee is still unwinding the Premier Cru estate in bankruptcy court.
-Al
-Al
-
- BerserkerBusiness
- Posts: 712
- Joined: July 26th, 2009, 9:53 am
- Location: bend/napa
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
james actually never retired.
he went to work in the warehouse.
he went to work in the warehouse.
ITB
- alan weinberg
- GCC Member
- Posts: 13822
- Joined: April 25th, 2009, 1:23 pm
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 63 times
- J a y H a c k
- GCC Member
- Posts: 14218
- Joined: May 29th, 2009, 9:59 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
Well, then someone is wasting the bankrupt estate's money, because the maintenance of the email server is not free.ybarselah wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 8:03 am lol - it's not a scam. it's a real response from whatever server is still alive. it's my old shitty yahoo account that gets spoofed all the time and sends emails, so one of them was sent to james' old account and i got that auto-reply. interesting that some email service is still alive, and presumably being paid for.
you can test this too, just send an email to: james@premiercru.net and you'll get the same auto response.
jay - stay away from all betting.
Yes, that's a DM of 1978 Mouton!
You can read my Financial Institutions Law Blog at https://www.gdblaw.com/blog?practiceID=4985.
You can read my Financial Institutions Law Blog at https://www.gdblaw.com/blog?practiceID=4985.
- Victor Hong
- Posts: 20376
- Joined: May 30th, 2009, 1:34 pm
- Location: Banana Republic of ‘Merica
- Been thanked: 25 times
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
Of the wines which actually arrived, he determined who received their paid-for orders and who was shorted.patrick c albright wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 1:58 pm james actually never retired.
he went to work in the warehouse.
WineHunter.
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
you think he's still there? if so, can we track down Ray's mylar bags???patrick c albright wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 1:58 pm james actually never retired.
he went to work in the warehouse.
Yaacov (ITB)
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
the email server is on the water. check back late July, August at the absolute latest.J a y H a c k wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 4:49 pmWell, then someone is wasting the bankrupt estate's money, because the maintenance of the email server is not free.ybarselah wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 8:03 am lol - it's not a scam. it's a real response from whatever server is still alive. it's my old shitty yahoo account that gets spoofed all the time and sends emails, so one of them was sent to james' old account and i got that auto-reply. interesting that some email service is still alive, and presumably being paid for.
you can test this too, just send an email to: james@premiercru.net and you'll get the same auto response.
jay - stay away from all betting.
Yaacov (ITB)
- Nowell Karten
- Posts: 703
- Joined: April 29th, 2010, 1:12 am
- Location: Los Angeles
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
Can Robert Mueller ask James what he already knew about John Fox's "scheme," at the time of James's exile (chosen or otherwise)? As someone who did almost all his later-day Premier Cru buying through James's "Special List," I've been curious.patrick c albright wrote: ↑February 10th, 2019, 1:58 pm james actually never retired.
he went to work in the warehouse.
In the little moment that remains to us between the crisis and the catastrophe,...
- Ken Kailin
- Posts: 117
- Joined: May 4th, 2010, 7:19 am
- Location: Northbrook, IL
- Al Osterheld
- GCC Member
- Posts: 7655
- Joined: March 15th, 2009, 5:47 am
- Location: SF Bay
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 26 times
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
The Trustee continues to bring in revenue from settlements. They have about $4M at last report.
-Al
-Al
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
How so? From who? Are there court filings that can be found to detail this? Articles?Al Osterheld wrote: ↑June 11th, 2019, 8:56 am The Trustee continues to bring in revenue from settlements. They have about $4M at last report.
-Al
Tom Kobylarz
Wine Solutions
Wine Solutions
- Al Osterheld
- GCC Member
- Posts: 7655
- Joined: March 15th, 2009, 5:47 am
- Location: SF Bay
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 26 times
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
There have been court filings but need to have a pacer account. There have also been negotiated settlements. The revenue has come from clawbacks from customers, and also from businesses Fox had paid while considered insolvent (auto leases, I think private school tuition). There were also some small caches of wine that had been purchased by PC but not delivered (I think even some in a warehouse in Beaune).
Some info is made available through an online company at bmcgroup.com (Trustee pays for the service).
-Al
Some info is made available through an online company at bmcgroup.com (Trustee pays for the service).
-Al
- CJ Beazley
- GCC Member
- Posts: 30447
- Joined: December 3rd, 2011, 6:33 am
- Location: Ovilla\Midlothian Texas
- Been thanked: 11 times
Re: Premier Cru Master Complaint Thread (MERGED)
I just posted this about how successful the Madoff recovery/clawback has been, I was totally shocked-
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=68543&p=2749137#p2749137
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=68543&p=2749137#p2749137
It's C(raig)