My name shows up in the list of addresses, but doesn’t show up in the details before that. I noticed that for a few others I know. Why would some show up with details and others not?
My guess is they ran out of time trying to enter all that data and had a deadline to meet, or else.
Very fair point and sloppy generalizing on my part. AMEX with an unsecured 10mm loss might agitate for some kind of clawbacks, but its not obvious where the collateral damage from that B-52 linebacker operation ends. And they may get hardly anything anyways, after everyone in front of them gets a sip from the loving cup.
The detailed list of claims only runs through people with first names beginning with B for some reason. No Clydes, no Johns, no Lukes, no Pauls, no Steves.
Don’t be a dumbass. Trolling the filing to list the names of people with large sums at issue? Come on. Grow up.
Not trying to kick you since it seems like you’ve had a tough year, but if one had gotten deliveries of 86 Mouton (or whatever) at unusually off market prices, that’s the kind of stuff that is on the end of the ‘ordinary course of business’ spectrum that may be not so ordinary anymore … and defensible. And may be challenged.
We’ll see to what extent ordinary customers are pursued over the years, and how people fight back, or if its simply uneconomic to, and people write the check and move on. The trouble with these debt collection firms is that even if one stiff arms them, they can cause mischief for years, in ways that people only realize much later when a mortgage refi or a job offer gets hung up because of that.
So perhaps some of this will depend on what kind of deals people got. If they got a great one, that is of course less likely that PC ever delivered, but if they did, it would seem to be farther from the FMV tests, and more at risk of being challenged.
As Tom Reddick suggests - either way - if its too good to be true…
Don’t be a dumbass. Trolling the filing to list the names of people with large sums at issue? Come on. Grow up.
Don’t be a dumbass and create your own definition of troll.
I used to live in an coop that had some CS folks as fellow shareholders and they were generally negative on Ogunlesi.
Apparently he reneged on staff contracts casually. To wit:
Also remember reading about that in the WSJ too, a long time ago. There were some particularly choice quotes from him at the time, that I won’t repeat, but perhaps they still live on in the interwebs.
No. No no no. Read the f*cking sentence again. Trolling. Not troll. Reading a bankruptcy filing to pull out names that fit a specific threshold clearly fits the definition. google before your post. It’s easy.
Really?
How dare anyone judge people who are victims of fraud as lesser victims because they are out more than others!!
I find this mentality beyond belief!
Do you even know these people? Some of us do- and just because they have more zeros in their loss does not mean they should be shamed for it!!!
There is no place for class warfare when dealing with victims of fraud.
Victims are victims are victims!!!
I agree, those are serious losses, Maureen. Still, those are astonishing sums given that PC wasn’t selling $50K auction bottles.
And I have met one of those people, who is exceedingly charming. So no ill wishes on my part. Just amazed at the amounts.
Sorry. I’m a journalist and it’s a public record.
I think the word you want is “trawling.”
Yet another self-serving post, mostly totally off topic.
Don,
You stated: “Moreover, if PC had actually been obtaining contractual commitments in Europe to source all of the wines in question, the names of those wineries, wholesalers, brokers and other sellers in Europe would be on the list of creditors. Do you see them there?”
If there were no commitments in Europe, how do you explain all the bottles of wine that PC delivered over the years? They delivered a shitload of wine from all over the globe. I assume they paid for the wines that got delivered over the years, and thats why you don’t see any suppliers listed in the filing.
Looking at cellar tracker data (which is a reasonably relevant sample of the total data):
325K bottles were purchased from PC in the 15 year period from 2001 to 2015.
84K bottles are still showing as pending from those purchases, on aggregate 26% non delivery rate.
241K bottles were delivered to customers.
As might be expected the non delivery rate climbs every year, from 11.8% of the 2007 purchases to 68% of the 2015 purchases. If you just look at 2014 and 2015, 56,817 bottles were sold to CT users, and as of tonight 37,125 (65%) bottles show as pending. I guess that most of the cash received from the 57K bottles that PC sold to CT users was actually used to pay for wine that was purchased in prior years.
I agree that it was a Ponzi scheme, and I am suggesting that the “PC model” sells on aggregate more wine than they source in a given year, either in dollars or bottles. (I have no idea if it is 5% or 20%, 10% is a guess). Based on the 130 pages of this thread and the listing of people owed money, that is the most obvious fact that we have. This shortfall compounded every year and was in addition to the real costs of paying salary and benefits. This is the mounting wave of shortfall that crested at $70M as of yesterday. As has been repeatedly stated, the fact that people like many of us on the board were willing to wait for delivery of our “good deal” allowed them to roll that shortfall over year after year and “inflate the balloon” even larger.
BTW, your 2002 Drouhin Musigny experience mirrors my experience with 2005 Drouhin Musigny, which was “purchased” by me from PC for $179 in 2006. They could not source the wine and offered me a refund or a replacement of 2009 Prieur Musigny. I was more patient than you and ultimately received the wine.
But back to the trainwreck at hand, what is your theory as to how the liability grew to $70M?
The section for the ‘detailed list of claims’ indicates the section is ~3000 pages long (the page count is listed at the bottom of the pages)…I’m assuming that the actual document filed in court included the full list and the online version truncated it.
George, maybe you need to remain “a layperson in this area”…a quiet one…
And then shitting on them publicly. Wow. Some of the named people may be suffering right now. Real suffering, not just a lost motorboat or a change in the balance sheet.
First time I’ve been prompted to think of the members of this board as belonging to the proletariat.
But perhaps you are defining class warfare as something that occurs between the haves and the have-mores.
Thanks for the comic relief, even if inadvertent.
Bill, as illustrated in this post, you’re probably the main reason I stopped paying attention to the warnings in this thread. Your intentions are solely to show the world how smart you are. There’s nothing else there. Yes you are very very smart. Smarter than I. You know far more than I about wine. Maybe not about how cases look to a judge bent on fairness but yes about wine. And money, i truly suck at money. Worse than a doctor dabbling in real estate LLP’s promising 25 percent returns. But it just seemed more important to you to show off than to truly be helpful. So your posts did not come from a place of wanting to inform or educate and after a while they were clearly untrustworthy because they were motivated by one thing. People recognizing how right and smart you are. On every single subject in the wine world. It’s witty entertainment but it’s not information. After a while I saw all the posts in this thread that way, except for those who quietly stated new facts backed by careful consideration, like everything Don Cornwell researches and writes. I thank those people and I apologize to my descendants that I let those posters’ voices get drowned out in my.mind.
Especially if some spouses are looking at that list, and suddenly querying certain figures, when someone has been been hiding expenses.
There’s probably a few Ashley Madison moments going to happen in the next week.