Not that it helps nor makes sense but 4 years ago a regular customer gave us his amex card number for a 14K order to be shipped the following week. Run the card number and Amex requested a call. The rep asked if the customer had already received the product or was there to pick up the product. When we answered no, she said Amex would not front money. No amount of arguing or comparisons worked, they flat refused to pay. The customer wired us the money the next day, saving us $488 in fees.
Hey Petey, after several years of shitting on plenty of folks who questioned the veracity of PCâs delivery status reports, sales model, and long term viability, you have zero credibility in this thread.
Jim-bo. Oh mighty arbiter of who is credible and who is not, we all bow down to your mighty keyboard.
Iâd be happy to have you show me where I (pardon the language) shitted on plenty of folks. What I did, with unerring and amazing consistency, was to explain a few concepts. First was hindsight bias / creeping determinism, and how that might apply here. Second was how talk without specific evidence is valueless (so some people who said âPC is a scam and I have proof but itâs secretâ), next was how PC had faithfully delivered wine to me for 15 years, often during periods when people were writing about how it was a scam (this is fact, not âshittingâ), and finally the concept of the âRisk Manager In My Headâ which means (of course) that each person should make their own credit assessment, and only take the risk with PC that fits that credit exposure profile. So please show me where I âshittedâ on someone?
Petey boy, there were quite a few posts that were deleted - some were mine as I was involved in that brouhaha. I canât specifically remember anything you posted as a stand out âshitting onâ; I only remember you were involved too. The person I do remember being particularly abrasive in his defense of PC and his antagonization of Paul was Mr. Lone Star⌠who, for some unknown reason, hasnât taken a stance in this thread recently. What say you, Tex? Are you out there? Be a stand up man like Peter has been and admit that Paul was right to warn everyone here. Hell, maybe even apologize like some members have done.
Tex? Are you receiving this? Confession is good for the soul.
All of the PREMIER CRU supporters who are so certain they knew the facts - I am certain are shocked to learn todayâs news, closing, law suits, unpaid claims, what a surprise, Iâm certain these Wineberserkers who absolutely knew what a good business this was and is, will re-assure all of the wine lovers whoâve lost money and wine, Not to Worry.
After years of customer griping over late wine orders, California wine retailer Premier Cruâs troubles reached its front door in mid-December when it abruptly closed its sleek retail shop in Berkeley. Customers hoping to pick up wine orders that Saturday were stopped by guards. Callers to Premier Cru currently hear a recorded announcement that the firm is âtransitioning to online sales onlyâ and is keeping limited hours for wine pickups by appointment.
At least 11 disgruntled Premier Cru customers are suing the long-established firm in state and federal courts. All the plaintiffs allege that Premier Cru failed to deliver wines the customers had paid for long after they were promised. Collectively, the plaintiffs are suing for more than $3 million in damages. On January 16, a hearing will be held in a Berkeley court to determine if the eight lawsuits filed in state court should be consolidated.
In two lawsuits, Premier Cru has failed to respond in a timely fashion and is facing court-ordered default. According to Alameda County tax records, the firm owes $130,000 in overdue property tax and has put its shop and an adjacent property up for sale for $6.8 million.
You guys gave great advice, you really knew your stuff⌠they just had a different business model, grey market? what was it, a different importer?
Actually, you just felt free to speak about what you did not know.
Easy to do
Iâm pleased that at least it will now be more difficult for more innocent wine lovers will be hurt.
I really felt so awful to see all of the supporters who fought with their ignorance in this community, to explain what Premier Cru was doing.
To support and endorse dishonest thieves who would eventually hurt so many people.
How this went on for so long I have no idea⌠I would not be surprised to be attacked again for my comments by the same people in-spite of the legal actions going on. f*ckers hurt so many people, and there are those of us in the wine industry who treat our responsibility of integrity with great respect, integrity, honesty and our word - that means a lot to quite a lot of wine professionals, which is why Rudy K. Gil Lempert and other liars tear at us so deeply.
I imagine so many people did not want to look behind the curtain.
Facing Irate Consumers And Possible Bankruptcy, California Wine Store Closes Its Doors
After years of customer griping over late wine orders, California wine retailer Premier Cruâs troubles reached its front door in mid-December when it abruptly closed its sleek retail shop in Berkeley. Customers hoping to pick up wine orders that Saturday were stopped by guards. Callers to Premier Cru currently hear a recorded announcement that the firm is âtransitioning to online sales onlyâ and is keeping limited hours for wine pickups by appointment.
At least 11 disgruntled Premier Cru customers are suing the long-established firm in state and federal courts. All the plaintiffs allege that Premier Cru failed to deliver wines the customers had paid for long after they were promised. Collectively, the plaintiffs are suing for more than $3 million in damages. On January 16, a hearing will be held in a Berkeley court to determine if the eight lawsuits filed in state court should be consolidated.
In two lawsuits, Premier Cru has failed to respond in a timely fashion and is facing court-ordered default. According to Alameda County tax records, the firm owes $130,000 in overdue property tax and has put its shop and an adjacent property up for sale for $6.8 million.
Premier Cru made its reputation by selling top-tier wines at lower prices than competitors, but often selling them as âpre-arrivals.â Premier Cruâs website currently offers just 146 in-stock wines, most priced under $25, but it offers 1,367 âpre-arrivalâ wines. Looking for a bottle of Domaine de la RomanĂŠe-Conti RomanĂŠe-Conti 2012? Premier Cru has 16 âpre-arrivalâ bottles for sale at $11,999 each. For years, the storeâs regular customers accepted the wait. Sometimes they gave up and applied their payments to in-stock wines. But the wait times appear to have worsened in recent years and many customers have lost patience.
Co-proprietor John Fox did not respond to requests for comment for this story. Others in the retail business speculate that several years of poor Bordeaux futures campaigns have sapped Premier Cruâs cash flow, leaving it unable to fulfill orders. In a previous interview, Fox seemed to put the blame on an influx of Asian customers, many apparently buying wines speculatively and unfamiliar with Premier Cruâs slow ways. Wine Spectator has the full story.
Right, Iâm certain the usual bully crowd has some great replies to explain what theyâve been saying all along, - great business model, not a Ponzi scheme⌠nhaâŚ
Huh?
I never bought a thing that I can remember from PC and never defended them. Paul was a cancer here for any number of reasons and I called him out on that, and not because of any of this. Please quote me a specific post and I will address.
Thanks.
The schadenfreude is strong in this one
John Fox, explains his business plan, which is what some members of this community have told me in the past,âŚ
Here it is laid out in detail, it is Asian Customers who would not continue to wait , after 4 and 5 years they demanded their wines. How dare they! This is precisely what some members of this community explained to me. ExactlyâŚ
Co-proprietor John Fox did not respond to requests for comment for this story. Others in the retail business speculate that several years of poor Bordeaux futures campaigns have sapped Premier Cruâs cash flow, leaving it unable to fulfill orders. In a previous interview, Fox seemed to put the blame on an influx of Asian customers, many apparently buying wines speculatively and unfamiliar with Premier Cruâs slow ways. âThey didnât understand how we work,â Fox told Wine Spectator in October.
The misunderstanding is, well, understandable. Que Ma, a plaintiff from Shenzhen, China, purchased 514 bottles of 2008 Bordeaux futures in the spring of 2009 for $152,969. The wines included 178 bottles of Château Lafite Rothschild at $529 per bottle and 45 bottles of Château Haut-Brion at $240 each. Five years later, Ma is still waiting for his wine.
Another client, Chun Yu, demanded his money back four years after placing his order. After Premier Cru âmade numerous false excuses to delay repayment,â according to Yuâs complaint filed in California Supreme Court, he received a Fox-signed check last March 16 for $288,798, but was asked to delay cashing the check until the next month. Yuâs lawsuit states that Fox cut checks to three other customers about the same time, totaling $731,535. All four checks bounced. (This is another part of the Premier Cru business plan?!)
Bo Feng, a Chinese citizen, filed a suit against Premier Cru in federal court claiming he paid $660,555 for undelivered wine. The store owners failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days as required, and on Dec. 9, a notice of default was entered against the retailer.
Just one depressing note - if they do have a warehouse full of wine covering 20% of orders, itâs actually the WRONG thing for them to ship it to the customer. In theory, if they did ship it to you and went bankrupt the next day, the bankruptcy trustee could demand that you redeliver the wine or write a check for its value, though thankfully in practice itâs probably not worth anyoneâs time to pursue that unless youâre a whale. I know this is counterintuitive (and counter to my interest), but if theyâre insolvent what theyâre supposed to do is convert everything to cash and pay everyone 2 cents on the dollar, not make 20% of their customers whole and screw all their other creditors. Even if you ordered the wine and paid for it, itâs not yours until they deliver it to you. Until then, youâre just a creditor like everyone else.
Well, actually, youâre not like the secured creditors, such as banks and credit card companies, and they probably scoop up all remaining cash long before the two cents makes it to you.
You donât have to like it, but thatâs where we are. For myself, I expect nothing from PC and will see anything I get as a bonus. (I did, as I was ordering, place considerable value on the Amex backstop and will be much more upset if they donât stand up - thatâs what made this a rational relationship.)
I should say that, while I am a lawyer, Iâm not your lawyer; more importantly, Iâm not a California lawyer, so all this is said in blissful ignorance of any Golden State wrinkles in how things generally work. But that is how things generally work.
I may be wrong but I am under the impression that credit card companies are unsecured creditors as they do not typically perfect their security interest.
You may well be right. Iâve never had reason to look into whether credit card companies are also screwed. I think the important point for us is that âunsecured creditorâ differs from âscrewedâ by ten letters and not much else.
Maybe my math is a little rusty, but wouldnât 2 cents on the dollar to everyone imply making 2% of their customers (by value) whole and screwing over the remaining 98%? Unless of course you meant 20% of the customers in total count, which would imply that those 20% customers are smaller ticket (i.e. not including the whales).
The numbers are entirely invented and unimportant, but customers are far from the only creditors.
Josh I could be wrong but I believe CC Companies have special statutory preferences. Pretty sure the tad guys have preferences too.
My only point is that comparing a 2 cents on the dollar payout to everyone (i.e. all creditors) to a situation where 20% of their creditors are made whole (by value) and screwing over the rest is really comparing two different pictures â one says PCâs assets / liabilities is 2% and the other says its 20%.
Customers =/= creditors. Get rid of the 2s and say making 15% of the customers whole screws the other 79% by value, or make it 21% and 94%.
Yup, definitely understand that. Just re-read your original post and see you made that distinction between the 2% and 20%, originally thought you were calling both either customers or creditors. All clear here nowâŚ
A bit of news:
On January 16, a hearing will be held in a Berkeley court to determine if the eight lawsuits filed in state court should be consolidated.
Josh