Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19
Hey Vale, has this brutal silver market taken Tulving out? - Page 10
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 100 of 100

Thread: Hey Vale, has this brutal silver market taken Tulving out?

  1. #91
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,118

    Default

    Finally some news for those waiting so longgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg.

    Chapter 7 Trustee, Weneta M. A. Kosmala, has valued the error coins at a total of $2.9M, based on the PCGS Price Guide. This works out to a value of about 18.75% of what each creditor is owed.

    You will receive (or may already have) a form that you can fill out and return, to let the court know whether to [1] send the error coins your address on file, [2] send the coins to a different address, or [3] opt out (not send you the coins). The form will list what coins you are due to receive (somewhere from about 10 to 200, depending on their value and how much you are owed). If you do not return the form by the July 3, 2017 deadline, the Trustee has requested that the court assume you wish to receive the coins.

    As the Trustee says, it is possible that you might not receive any other form of distribution. By receiving the coins, you are at least guaranteed to get something.

    The only other news is fairly minor. The Trustee filed a motion to subpoena a coin dealer for a 2004 Exam, which would help the Trustee find out if they may owe The Tulving Company some more error coins. Also, a pre-trial conference for the $2.1M lawsuit against Levon Gugasian and his son Armen Gugasian has been delayed to October or November. Armen has been deposed already, but Levon had not (as of late March).


    Finally, Hannes Tulving, Jr. has now been in prison for over a year.


    Error Coins: Not Much Longer. Maybe.

    June 2, 2017 4:10PM EST from about.ag

    In December, 2015, then Chapter 7 Trustee Mr. Neilson expected the error coins to be distrubuted to creditors by mid-February, 2016. That got delayed to early May, 2016. As August hit, the new Chapter 7 Trustee Ms. Kosmala expected the coins to be delivered in early 2017.

    Finally, however, the coins have now all been graded, and are waiting to be shipped once the court approves Docket 667. The 2-page Exhibit A lists the coins in 59 different categories (based on coin type, date, error variety, and grade), along with the PCGS Price Guide value of each. There are a total of 15,580 coins, with a PCGS value of $2,955,113.

    After the order is approved, each creditor should receive in the mail a list of the coins they are to receive, along with an option for updating their mailing address and/or opting out (samples here). They point out that if you opt out of receiving the coins, it is possible that you may get no other form of distribution out of the bankruptcy estate (in other words, it may be the coins or nothing). There are scenarios where opting out could be advantageous (not being a lawyer, I cannot go into depth on that). But if I had ended up being a creditor, I would definitely not opt out of receiving the coins.

    A quick spot-check shows these values to be more in line with the actual values, but still appear to be somewhat high (especially given that the Tulving bankruptcy will bring a lot more of these to the market).
    Last edited by valerb; 6th June 2017 at 18:23.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  2. #92
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,118

    Default

    Who knows, maybe now!!!!


    Error Coins: Very soon.

    September 9, 2017 8:25PM EST from about.ag

    I have now heard from two separate sources that the error coins will be delivered soon. It seems that all the legal hurdles have been dealt with, and it is just a matter of the company that has the coins sending them out.
    The best guess seems to be within the next two weeks.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  3. #93
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,118

    Default

    Then on September 21st another update followed by still another one yesterday saying "DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY", they are still coming. Just how long does it take to ship out these coins, it's been over two months now. It sounds like they have hired NWTM to fill these shipping requests.


    Error Coins: On Their Way!

    September 21, 2017 8:55AM EST

    The error coins hold different meaning to different creditors. Some chose not to receive them, some just want to get rid of them as soon as they can, others will hold on to them.
    The coins, however, are on their way. I believe that most creditors received an E-mail yesterday letting them know when the coins were or will be sent, along with a tracking number. Some have already received them.




    Error Coins - Many Shipped, Values

    November 12, 2017 11:40AM EST

    So far, it seems that quite a few creditors have received their share of error coins, but there are still some who have not yet received them. If you haven't received them yet, you should not worry (unless you received an E-mail saying that they have already been shipped).

    I have heard from a number of creditors regarding the value of the coins. This has been an issue since the beginning, where the U.S. Attorney called them worthless, yet estimated valuations ended up ranging as high as $20 million. The Trustee originally used a $7 million valuation as a way to determine which creditors should get which coins (which ended up failing, as the coins were not individually graded). About a year ago, the new Trustee said that Heritage Auctions estimated the coins were only worth about $500,000, but that the coins would need to be individually graded to determine whether the value was closer to the $500K or $7M. The grading was completed around May, 2017, with the Trustee reporting a value of $2,955,113, based on the PCGS Price Guide.

    Unfortunately, reports I have heard from creditors seem to indicate much lower values. That means that if, for example, you were sent coins with a valuation listed as $10,000, it is unlikely that you would be able to actually get that much money if you were to sell them (perhaps getting $2,000-$4,000 or so). Part of the reason seems to be that the PCGS Price Guide had unrealistically high values to begin with. Another reason is that there are a lot of these coins that will be coming to the market, decreasing the value. Also, the easiest way to dispose of them is going to a local coin dealer, who cannot offer anywhere near what the coins are valued at (a typical coin store does not specialize in error coins, and would likely have to sell most/all to another dealer, and factor in the risk of overestimating their value).

    I have had several creditors ask me for advice on the best way to sell them. Unfortunately, I do not have an easy answer for this. If you are just looking to sell them as quickly as possible, and are willing to put in a bit of effort, you could try auctioning them on eBay (where you can reach a large audience). If you can find a coin store that specializes in error coins, that might be a good way selling them quickly with little effort, at a price greater than what a local coin store would likely be able to pay. Alternatively, you could just hold on to the coins without planning to sell them. If anyone knows of a better way, please let me know, and I can post the information here.



    .
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  4. #94
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,118

    Default

    Gugasian Settlement Reached...

    November 22, 2017 2:45PM EST from about.ag

    Last night I found out that Chapter 7 Trustee Weneta Kosmala signed a settlement agreement with Levon Gugasian and Armen Gugasian. A hearing will be held on December 14 to see if the court approves it.
    The terms of the settlement agreement require the Gugasians to pay $648,250.00 (compared to the $2.1M the Trustee was looking for). The original lawsuit claimed: $259,500 for the 2 apartments, $971,200 for the main office, $454,067.88 for the unused 16th Street building, $225,000 each against Levon Gugasian and Armen Gugasian for consulting fees, and that Levon drop his bankruptcy claims (which he will per the settlement agreement).

    I will be writing further about this, as it bring up a number of issues.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  5. #95
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,118

    Default

    Professional Fees, Assets

    November 25, 2017 5:20PM EST

    In January, I put together a list of professional fees awarded. No further compensation updates have occurred, but I have calculated what I believe is owed and what has been paid so far. The courts make it extremely difficult (and costly!) to compile and verify this information, so there could be errors.

    FEES/EXPENSES:
    Professional 3/2014 through 1/2015 2/2015 through 10/2016 Total Paid Owed Notes
    BRG $200,203.19 $418,403.44 $618,606.63 $32,864 $585,742.63 BRG was authorized to be paid $86,470.05, but received $32,864 (per docket 637).
    PSZ&J $245,394.31 $498,208.05 $743,602.36 $107,763.54 $635,838.82
    R. Todd Neilson $97,347.39 None $97,347.39 $2,802.14 $94,545.25
    Total $542,944.89 $916,611.49 $1,459,556.38 $143,429.68 $1,316,126.70

    ASSETS:
    Date Cash Other Notes
    October, 2016 $605,093 0 to $567,434 Last known cash balance. 'Other' is money owed by On the Rocks jewelry.
    December, 2016 -$227,000 Weneta Kosmala authorized a debt collector to collect the debt, with a 40% fee plus expenses.
    June, 2017 -$99,885 Money paid to Great Collections to grade the error coins
    TOTAL $1,153,458 0-$340,000 Total from $1,153,348 to $1,493,458



    By my calculations, it would take about $1,225,000 in cash for creditors to get any payments (assuming the Trustee's fees are limited based on the amount of money that creditors get, not including the error coins, which the Trustee agreed not to be included in the calculation).

    So if the settlement is approved and no money comes in from On The Rocks (as the Trustee seems to imply), it looks like creditors would not be able to get any money (the full $1,153,458 would go to the professionals). If all the money from On The Rocks comes in, and my calculations are close, creditors would get roughly 1.5% of what they are owed (e.g. $150 for every $10,000 owed).
    I could well be overlooking something here, but since the Chapter 7 Trustee Weneta Kosmala doesn't seem to be willing to communicate with me or creditors, I have no further information to go on.


    The Benefit of Suing the Gugasians

    November 25, 2017 5:25PM EST

    If the Settlement Agreement is allowed by the court, we have to wonder what benefit there was to the $2.1M Gugasian lawsuit.


    If the court allows the settlement, the lawsuit will have penalized the Gugasians, who allegedly took money improperly from The Tulving Company (and therefore creditors). But if the allegations are accurate, they will still have gained (e.g. they made more improperly than they have to pay). All the money would end up in the pockets of the professionals. That would mean that the creditors gained nothing from the lawsuit (and lost something, as the estate could have been closed well over a year ago without the lawsuit).
    For the creditors, the benefit of settling for the $648K amount is simply that it speeds up closure; the case can be closed quicker.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  6. #96
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,118

    Default

    Other Notes

    November 25, 2017 5:30PM EST

    According to the court filings (Docket 724 p11 footnote), it would cost about $100K-$200K (Trustee's estimate) or $200K-$300K (Gugasian's estimate) to try the Gugasian lawsuits.

    The Trustee, Weneta M.A. Kosmala, says that the Settlement Agreement should be allowed by the court based on 3 factors used in cases like this: "1. Probability of Success / Complexity of Litigation", "2. Difficulties with Collection", and "3. Interests of Creditors."

    For #1, she says that she believes the claims are viable and "that there is a good likelihood of success", but there may be "complex forensic accounting issues" (e.g. the Gugasians have challenged that The Tulving Company was bankrupt at certain times), it would take additional months and fees/costs ($100K-$300K, not out of the creditors' pockets). For #2, she does not anticipate difficulty collecting a judgment, but believes the Gugasians would appeal (costing more time and potentially more money). For #3, she points out that the error coins were valued at 18.75% of the claims (despite apparently being worth much less).
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  7. #97
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,118

    Default

    Fact Checking: Trustee Weneta Kosmala

    November 26, 2017 1:30PM EST

    Settlements are tricky, as there are often disputed facts, and almost always a dispute over what constitutes a fair settlement. The vast majority of the facts stated by Ms. Kosmala appear to be true (such as the background of the case). So I will focus on the ones I see as concerning.

    First, she states on page 7 line 16 that all 3 leases (office, apartment, home office) were "upon information and belief at fair market rates." This is, unfortunately, complete hogwash. The apartment lease started in 2006 at $12,500/month plus tax/insurance (with a $25,000 security deposit). Yet somehow in 2015, it was being listed (partially furnished and newly upgraded) at just $5,500/mo (with a $5,500 deposit). The "home office" lease was similar, being leased to The Tulving Company in 2006 for $12,500/month but being offered in 2016 for $1,850/mo. How in the world could $12,500 in 2006 have been market rate if the apartment was then offered it for $1,850 in 2016? The office lease of $13,000 in 2008 appears to me to have been roughly market value at the time, but how could it have been fair market value if the rent of $33K in 2014 was fair (per Levon's statement), and it was then offered in 2015 for $10K?

    Ms. Kosmala also states that Hannes Tulving was able to reduce his recognized income by $200,000 in 2011 as a result of the "reallocated rents". That opens a can of worms: the original rent was heavily inflated (so it likely should NOT have been recognized as income), and half of the $200,000 amount comes from the "home office" that Hannes Tulving was apparently not using at all (and should therefore not have to be reported as income). So it appears that the "reallocated rents" reduced Hannes Tulving's income to what it should have been reported as.

    Ms. Kosmala knew last year that the apartment she believes had a fair market value of $12,500/mo in 2006 was on the market for $1,850 last year. She was also aware that the 2006 leases had identical rents (despite being apartments with very different values), and that the reason for the identical rents was that one of the leases appears to be an altered photocopy of the other (and if true, presumably forged). She also knew that the the Santaniellos (associates of the Gugasians) lived in the "home office" for years, making it dubious that The Tulving Company could have benefitted from the apartment.

    What we see here, unfortunately, has all the signs of a clueless Trustee, treating this as a simple Chapter 7 lawsuit of a normal business arrangement that didn't quite work as planned. Ms. Kosmala has handled roughly 30,000 Chapter 7 cases over the past 13 years , so she is likely on "auto pilot", and has no clue what really went on (e.g. considered $12,500 "market rent" for an apartment that was offered for $1,850 a decade later), and what a fair settlement should be (from what is known, it appears that the Gugasians received about $875,000 in rent just from the apartment that The Tulving Company apparently never used and did not even sign a lease for).
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  8. #98
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,118

    Default

    Fact Checking: Gugasians

    November 26, 2017 1:45PM EST

    Regarding the consulting fees and payments for the 16th Street building, the Gugasians assert that those were pursuant to an agreement between the Gugasians and The Tulving Company to enter into a new business venture for minting silver coins, with the Gugasians agreeing to provide $2M in funding for silver and equipment. I am aware of some agreement signed in 2011, but the agreement and details have not surfaced. So at this point, I have no evidence suggesting that the agreement was made.

    However, it does not seem to fully account for the 16th Street building expenses. For example, The Tulving Company paid rent on the property from 23 May 2011 through 07 Mar 2012, despite the property having a "For Lease" sign during part or all of that time. And why was The Tulving Company paying contractors and others directly, rather than paying Levon Gugasian as the landlord? Why would a company pay rent and expenses on a property it would never occupy? And why was rent being paid before the property was ready? Why didn't the Gugasians just show Ms. Kosmala a copy of the lease and the 2011 agreement? That would answer these questions.

    Next, the Gugasians assert that the The Tulving Company and creditors benefited from the "reallocation of rents" (in early 2011, the rents of the apartments and office were altered dramatically, with the office rent going up and the rents of the apartments going down). There is no doubt that The Tulving Company benefited from the office and one of the two apartments. All facts point to the office being used as expected by The Tulving Company, and one apartment being used by Hannes Tulving. So there was definitely a lot of benefit there.

    The Gugasians also assert that they gave value "by way of the leased premises and accommodations respecting same". In other words, The Tulving Company did use the office building and apartments. However, James Santaniello and Karen Santaniello declared under the penalty of perjury that they lived at the "home office" while The Tulving Company was paying rent there. And later, a chef of Levon Gugasian's restaurant was apparently living in that apartment. I have seen nothing suggesting that The Tulving Company in any way used the second apartment. Hannes Tulving might have known James, Karen and the chef -- but Levon Gugasian definitely did (they were his contractor, real estate agent, and Levon's restaurant's chef).

    The Gugasians further state that Levon's claim for rent rejection should be allowed because his claims "represent actual damages (as the leases were not below market)." Presumably that was an error, and meant to say "as the leases were not ABOVE market". This applies to the rents as of the dates The Tulving Company stopped paying them. Fair Market Value is subjective, and as a landlord, his opinion should be spot-on. Yet this statement stretches credulity, for 2 reasons. First is the obvious: the rent on the office appears to have been way above market ($33K/mo in 2014 going up to $40K/mo in 2021, compared to the $10K/mo the unit was actually offered for in 2015). The second is that he claims the $6,000/mo and $7,300/mo for the apartments were market value -- but if so, why did he rent them for $12,500 each in 2006 (with one of the leases apparently forged)?

    Finally, the Gugasians contend that The Tulving Company "remained solvent at least until the end of 2012." The catch is that by mid-April, 2013, The Tulving Company had hit a point where it could no longer send out orders as quickly as they came in. And if the contention is true, it suggests that The Tulving Company somehow lost $17M within about a year, which if true suggests massive previously unknown fraud (expected actual expenses in 2013 were about $6M on the $300M in business they did that year). And if true, it does not account for orders in 2012 that took 3+ weeks to deliver (versus the several days it had previously taken). However, I have heard that the accounting records put together by a Gugasian employee do show the value of the error and other coins to be over $15M, which indeed could have shown The Tulving Company as being solvent at the end of 2012.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  9. #99
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,118

    Default

    This may be of special interest for anyone that is a creditor in the Tulving case;


    Survey Results: Settlement Agreement Should Not Be Approved

    November 28, 2017 5:10PM EST

    I sent out an E-mail yesterday to the Tulving Updates mailing list, explaining that a Settlement Agreement with the Gugasians had been reached, and that the Court will need to approve it. I added a very brief survey, asking if the people responding were a creditor, and whether they felt the Settlement Agreement should be approved (if you have not yet responded, feel free to do so).

    As I write this, 41 Tulving Company creditors have responded. Of them, 1 felt that the Settlement Agreement should be approved, 2 were unsure, and 38 believe the Settlement Agreement should NOT be approved (there were also 4 non-creditors that took the survey, who all felt the Settlement Agreement should not be approved).

    From the results so far, it seems pretty clear that the majority of creditors would like to see the Settlement Agreement denied.

    When the Trustee last year asked the Court's permission to give some customer information to Great Collections at no cost to them, one creditor had a lawyer file a basic objection with the court (not going into any detail of why the creditor objected), without having the lawyer attend the hearing. Quite a few creditors E-mailed the Trustee as well. However, the Court allowed the Trustee to give away the customer data. That means that it may be difficult to convince the Judge to deny the Settlement Agreement.

    So the question becomes: What can a creditor do to help see to it that the Settlement Agreement is not allowed? The only advice I can offer (because I am not an attorney) is to contact an attorney. That said, if you aren't looking to spend money, I can provide information. And the most obvious piece of information is that if you want your opinion known to people, you must let them know. So E-mailing the Chapter 7 Trustee Weneta M. A. Kosmala (wkosmala@kosmalalaw.com) and/or her attorneys Linda F. Cantor (lcantor@pszjlaw.com) and James K.T. Hunter (jhunter@pszjlaw.com) is one option. It didn't work before, but likely can't hurt.

    At the first Creditors' Meeting, then-Trustee Mr. Neilson said "Sometimes judges do not know what is going on unless someone files something." Filing court documents to the Court's specifications can be very complex, but in the NWT Mint bankruptcy, many creditors simply wrote a letter addressed to the Judge, which the court filed as part of the case (which becomes a public record). I cannot say how to file something to get a judge's attention; however, I can provide the general court phone number: (855) 460-9641 (which could be used to get information on how to file a document), and the address the Court's website gives for the Judge:

    Honorable Erithe A. Smith
    United States Bankruptcy Court
    Central District of California
    Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse
    411 West Fourth Street, Suite 5040 / Courtroom 5A
    Santa Ana, CA 92701-4593

    The case number is 8:14-bk-11492-ES, the motion to approve the Settlement Agreement is Docket 724.

    Ultimately, it may take one or more creditors getting an attorney involved to prevent the Settlement Agreement from being approved (e.g. writing a formal objection, and appearing at the hearing).



    here is a copy of the actual survey that was sent out to creditors and others on the list, I have removed the access to the survey as it's only intended for creditors to have a voice in their future and it only asked if you are a creditor and if you want to vote yes, no or I don't have any idea what to do. OK it just said yes - no or other response.

    Hello,

    The Chapter 7 Trustee, Weneta Kosmala, has signed a Settlement Agreement with the Gugasians, which would let them pay $648,250 to settle the $2.1M lawsuit against them. The court will have a hearing on December 14 to approve the agreement. If you wish to read further details about the agreement and some of my thoughts, you can go to about.ag/tulving.htm.

    Unfortunately, after re-reading the document several times, it appears that Ms. Kosmala believes that the Settlement Agreement she signed would not generate any cash distributions to creditors. The cash that the estate has, and the money paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, would all go to the professionals (about $1.2M). She believes that this outcome (compared to bringing this to trial) is in the best interests of the creditors.

    The one advantage I see to the agreement is that it would offer closure: my understanding is that creditors would essentially be able to "write off" the debt (either mentally, and/or on your taxes).

    On the other hand, if the Settlement Agreement is not approved, and the Gugasian lawsuit were to go to trial, the trial has the potential of bringing in an additional $1.5M or so, much of which could go to creditors. And it would help further expose the truth about what happened at The Tulving Company (good or bad). The Trustee believes there is a good likelihood of success at trial and collecting a judgment, but they may have to do complex forensic accounting, the Gugasians would likely appeal a judgment, and it would take longer until the bankruptcy was over.

    Unless the judge feels compelled otherwise, I imagine the Court would approve the settlement. The judge is likely unaware, for example, that the amount of the Settlement Agreement is less than the amount that the Gugasians apparently received just from the "Home Office" lease, which appears to be an altered photocopy of the signed apartment lease (e.g. not even signed by The Tulving Company), and an apartment that the Gugasian's associates lived in and apparently not used by The Tulving Company.

    Since I am not a creditor, it is not my place to determine whether the Settlement Agreement is truly in the best interests of creditors. I would, however, like to hear what you think. I have set up a *very* simple survey at https: just asking if you are a creditor (there are only a few people on this list that are not), and whether you believe the court should approve the Settlement Agreement.

    I will send another E-mail in perhaps a couple of days, after I get a sense of how people feel about the Settlement Agreement.

    JG
    Last edited by valerb; 29th November 2017 at 17:03.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  10. #100
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    9,118

    Default

    There was a letter produced by a creditor in objection to the Trustee settling their case against the Gugasians for an amount that would only benefit everyone else but the ones that were screwed by Tulving. It was asked by the court for those objecting to the settlement to let them know so individuals have been adding their names to this letter that is being addressed below. The letter itself is well documented but was sent only to those on the mailing list so I didn't post a copy on this forum. I'm on the mailing list only for information purposes, not as a creditor. If you are a creditor and wish to be added I would act fast as they were given a deadline to respond.


    Letter to Sign

    December 6, 2017 5:50PM EST

    If any creditors are not on the "Tulving Updates" mailing list, and would like to add their name and/or comments to a letter that a creditor put together, please E-mail me at about.ag@gmail.com and I can get you in touch with the person who is organizing it.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •