Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bootstrap.php(430) : eval()'d code on line 134

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
Northwest Territorial Mint - Page 13
Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 142

Thread: Northwest Territorial Mint

  1. #121
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    10,393

    Default

    There has been a whole series of letters and court tapes from hearings which ended last Friday December 7th.

    No telling what will come of this if anything, but keeping up with all the detail is interesting and the Bankruptcy judge in a number of session Friday did address a number of issues.

    I only listened to the last session which was a two hour tape and the most interesting by far as the judge spent almost the entire time demanding answers from several different attorneys and the trustee and wants them as declarations to the court by the middle of January so he will have a couple weeks to go over everything before their February 1st meeting.

    These attorneys are not only the ones for the trustee but also the attorney for the creditors committee is also in potential hot water. As he and the attorney for the trustee both seemed to have violated client privileges by sharing information that was like the defense and prosecutor sharing information and the creditors attorney allowing the trustees lawyer to question members of the creditors committee which he had no right according to the judge without their consent. So he was very interested in who knew what and when according to emails flying around and who violated these confidentiality agreements put in place. But if nothing comes of all this information, then it is nothing but smoke and mirrors to cover everyone's ass. Only time will tell.

    If things actually turn ugly for these people through the court, I'll post all the detail later for everyone to read, I just don't trust anyone in these bankruptcy cases from what I've seen over the past couple years.

    Just a hint of what the judge raised an issue with and wants an explanation for: why did the trustee tell everyone for some 18 months that NWTM was a solvent company and he was restructuring it to bring it out of bankruptcy and over the past few months it has turned in to a insolvent company and has been all along. He said these two statements do not agree and wants to know why and if he had known this a long time ago he wouldn't have agreed to many of their request.

    None of this will end up helping anyone that is on the hook from NWTM, as the amount of money all the blood suckers are requesting amounts to something like five million dollars and there is only something like three million left.

    Whoops someone is not going to get paid for all their work as in the trustee, the legal team he has hired and his company working for him doing some of the work, plus the creditors attorney.

    You wouldn't believe the amount of money they spent on legal fees going after just one employee who was judged to be basically insolvent which they knew before hand and yet they spent a fortune going after her and the judge made a real issue of sound judgment out of things like that.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  2. #122
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    10,393

    Default

    As an addition to the above message, the following information was posted today listing many of the items discussed and the declarations required. This is being posted in two parts because it was just over the size limit

    The characters listed below are as follows:

    Calvert is the Trustee running the show at NWTM

    Gearin is the attorney representing the trustee side

    Mr Smith is the US Trustee, but has little to say or do in this hearing

    Judge Alston is the overlord or God who decides who will or will not get paid and anything else he desires

    Northrup is the attorney representing the UCC or creditors committee

    Wagner was an executive with NWTM helping the re-organization

    Mr. Bressler was a co-owner of Medallic Art with Ross Hansen and silent partner and silently got shoved out to sea by the Judge

    Diane Erdmann is the co-defendant in the bankruptcy case and criminal trials

    Ross Hansen is the go-defendant in the bankruptcy case and criminal trials and also the owner of NWTM

    Bill Hansen if that's how his name is spelled is or was a member of the UCC as the co-chair until he resigned last year, apparently no relation with Ross.

    Cascade Capital is a company owned by Calvert the trustee

    There are a few other names but of no real significance
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  3. #123
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    10,393

    Default

    Part two


    The final portion started with Mr. Smith from the U.S. Trustee's office stating that his office has met with Calvert and Gearin (but did not say when), regarding fees and allegations. He said that the U.S. Trustee's office has already either taken actions or not taken them, as deemed appropriate given the case and circumstances, and the resources of his office. I find this odd, as just a few hours before that statement, Smith found out (unless he already knew) about the $250K loss Calvert did not report. Maybe that not insuring a $250,000 package is a simple business decision.

    Judge Alston then mentioned that there are a lot of questions, and he is going to have each party file declarations responding to many of the questions. He said that he is considering the letters of the former and previous member of the UCC, but not considering my letters (as he does not consider me a creditor), a decision which I respect. The main takeaway of the hearing was that Calvert, Gearin, and Northrup are going to have to file declaration(s) with statements as well as some documents to back up their positions. Calvert and Gearin need to re-file their fee applications broken down by category.

    Among the declarations needed are:


    •In October, 2017 fee applications were filed, but Gearin said that they would be addressed when the value of the company was more certain. But no value was conferred. How should fee applications be viewed then?

    •Calvert needs to declare whether he auctioned or consigned goods, which would have required reporting in the monthly operating reports (MORs), and court approval.

    •Calvert needs to explain why he reimbursed $31K of expenses that were not disclosed on the MORs, and the authority on which he did that.

    •Calvert needs to explain the store inventory, where it is, when it was acquired.

    •Calvert/Gearin need to explain why they said that the estate was administratively solvent, when they said that it was insolvent, and why they made certain statements related to that.

    •Calvert/Gearin need to supply non-privledged emails regarding the resignation of the UCC co-chair in March, 2017.

    •Gearin needs to explain why the Trustee went after Diane Erdmann for the AmEx claims, rather than AmEx (who is solvent and would have fewer defenses).

    •Calvert needs to address whether he knew of Wagner's plan to take over the China business in 2016, and to include a copy of the plan. Calver also needs to address what his concerns were in March, 2018 when he asked K&L Gates how to best manage Sierra Mint.

    •Calvert must address the issue with the dies, and how he said there were 400,000 (Gearin said that they could not find any contract showing that the China dies are property of NWTM). Calvert also stated that Lin-Jung Feng (a/k/a Yong Tuo) sells goods to NWTM.

    •Calvert must explain why if he said this was a Ponzi scheme, no avoidance actions were taken. Alston mentions payments of $45K, $500K+ and others to individuals.

    •An explanation must be provided as to why the Dayton lease was assumed, which Calvert said was an above market lease, and substantial fees were billed for that.

    •Calvert has to explain extraordinary expenses, as required by 2016-1(a)(7). These include photography, a garbage container, that sound like Calvert fronted money with short-term loans (reimbursing himself before admin claims.

    •Calvert must explain why he paid Amicus Law Group, who Gearin said were Calvert's personal tax attorneys.

    •Calvert must address payments to two employees/consultants, including a $6,000 even payment for "meals-travel" after a $310.80 payment was made for meals.

    •Calvert must address a $1,000 cash payment to an employee of his, and why it was not disclosed as a payment to a professional, why the box wasn't checked on the MOR.

    •Calvert must address why in August, 2016 $26,000 of payments were made to Edgar Chacon as "Exp. Reports". Calvert stated at the hearing that he, um, doesn't recall what those were.

    •Professionals must include in declarations all payments to lawyers, auctioneers, consultants, and any other professionals not approved by the court, with date and explanation of each payment, and copies of any documents or agreements with them, and emails/communications requesting them.

    •They must address all payments made to Calvert's Cascade Capital and employees, with date and reason for payment.

    •They must address all payments made to Wagner and Chacon, with date and reason, except for normally salary.

    •They must address all payments made to Ms. Fleet and Ms. Johnson (except for salary payments), and Mr. Mannelly

    •Northrup must include why there was no forensic audit

    •Northrup must include whether the UCC approved the omission of a paragraph in a motion.

    •Northrup must address a call about a settlement agreement with Mr. Bressler, after the judge denied a settlement agreement.

    •Northrup must address whether the UCC wanted him to take action to have Calvert removed as Trustee, and if so, why no action was taken.

    •Northrup must include in his declaration a copy of his email response to the UCC co-chair that requested Northrup to take action to remove Calvert.

    •Northrup must reconstruct what happened with a settlement agreement that needed to be kept from Ross Hansen, and why it was not promptly brought before the court as the agreement required.

    •Gearin and Northrup must check to see if Northrup sent Gearin the email that the co-chair sent, and confirm or deny that they received it at any time.

    •Northrup must address whether he authorized Gearin to contact UCC members about disclosures to Ross Hansen.

    •Gearin must produce a copy of the Wagner contract that Gearin reviewed

    •Calvert needs to explain why the Dayton lease was assumed. Calvert tried answering that they studied another option, liked it, but didn't have the money. But Judge Alston said he already did not accept that with a prior decision.

    •Calvert needs to address why Cascade is billing for things that ppear to be Trustee duties, such as backing up videos, and why someone from Cascade should be paid to come to the court (unless as a witness).

    •Calvert needs to address why Cascade was billing for reviewing Proof of Claims in July 2017.

    •Calvert needs to address why a solvency analysis was necessary.

    •Calvert needs to explain why categories for billings changed from the October, 2017 fee application to the 2018 fee application. He should redline what categories changed.

    •Calvert needs to address some extraordinary expenses, such as the fee to the outfit in India that did data entry, not a normal business expense.

    desired, and dismissed it, but asked Wagner to stay, and that Wagner has done an outstanding job.

    Gearin said that in May, 2018 there were discussions with Wager regarding having Sierra Mint help liquidate the China inventory, and there was a draft of a contract at that time, but Calvert said nothing was finalized.

    When Northrup was asked if the UCC voted for a forensic audit of Calvert's books, he said "not formally." Northrup said that the financial advisor was to test projections in a reorganization plan, and that none of the Seattle-based advisors were willing to take the engagement. Barrick was proposed by Petteys. When Judge Alston asked Northrup if he discussed the resignation of the UCC co-chair with the U.S. Trustee's office, Northrup said "I don't remember if I did, I think I did, if I didn't Gearin probably did or may have."

    The UCC co-chair resigned, apparently because he leaked confidential information to Ross Hansen. However, Judge Alston points out that the information (that a settlement agreement was signed) does not seem that it could have been confidential, since in the agreement Calvert says that he will promptly apply to the court for approval of the agreement, which would make it public. When Northrup was asked why it needed to be kept from Ross Hansen, Northrup couldn't respond, saying he would "need to re-construct this".

    Neither Gearin nor Northrup could recall if Northrup emailed Gearin a copy of the letter that the UCC co-chair sent to Northrup asking him to take action to remove Calvert. Judge Alston stated "I'm concerned [Northrup] ratted out a client".

    Judge Alston pointed out that it appears that Gearin may have been contacting people represented by counsel without authorization (violating basic rules of professional conduct). Gearin couldn't remember if he got permission ("I cannot remember is if I got an affirmative sign-off from Northrup or not." at 1:17:45ish), but then his memory goes from failing to crystal clear at 1:19:10ish: "I'll have to go back to look at the records. I believe I had a conversation with Northrup before I sent that, in fact I am sure I did, I had a conversation before I sent that email and I told him what I was going to do, so he was aware that I was going to send this email to each of the committee members. I copied him on that, I requested that they each produce a packet of information and they complied, including [the UCC co-chair]."

    The hearing ended with everyone agreeing to have supplemental declarations by January 18, 2019 for a February 1, 2019 hearing.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  4. #124
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    10,393

    Default

    Criminal Trial Moved to June, 2019

    January 8, 2019 12:25PM EST

    The Ross Hansen and Diane Erdmann criminal trial has been postponed to June 10, 2019 at 9:00AM.

    Hansen and Erdmann had requested the trial to be continued to October 21, 2019. While the judge agreed that a continuation would be necessary to ensure proper justice, he did not feel that it was necessary to delay until October.



    As an update, Charles McAllister from Bullion Direct is scheduled to go on trial May 13th, 2019. He is facing up to 50 years which he'll never get as it would be a life sentence for him.

    It all depends on the prosecutors, but Hansen didn't violate some of the potential laws McAllister did with ripping off IRA accounts, if that's a federal offense.

    It's hard to believe how much these guys ripped off from honest hard working men and women and yet Tulving only served a couple years.
    Last edited by valerb; 10th January 2019 at 23:59.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  5. #125
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    10,393

    Default

    (Page 1)

    Here are the court ordered Declarations by the Trustee (Calvert), his attorney (Gearin) and the attorney for the creditors committee (Northrup).
    Then there is an attached Declarations: Key Takeaways by About.ag who is covering all this. The comments after each question and answer are those from about.ag.
    My only comment is, the Balls on these guys must be really HUGE!! They have a lot more on the line than just trying to split $5M worth of billing between them out of a $2M pot.



    Calvert's Declaration

    January 20, 2019 11:50AM EST

    Here, I'm going in order by what Judge Alston asked Calvert for at the December 7, 2018 hearing. I'm not including everything, since there is quite a bit of "housekeeping" (verifying that certain things happened correctly, that did). Remember, Calvert was asked these questions in order to get paid. If he omits information, he could easily get paid less than requested. If I was asking a judge for over $2,000,000 for me and my company (although there is only enough cash to pay about 40% of that), I would provide every last detail, and not skip a single thing.

    The judge asked Calvert if he had any consignment/auction agreements, and that if so, they should have been reported in the monthly operating reports (UST-17 "Other Information", question 1). Calvert fessed up to the Holabird auctions I have been reporting, including a copy of one contract -- but it does not include the dies (Holabird auctioned off thousands of the dies that Ross Hansen had collected though NWTM). This omission is especially problematic as the judge also had asked about the dies (more on that below). There is also the question of whether Calvert needed permission to hire the auctioneers. Calvert points out that docket 1772 authorizes him to "sell, whether by public auction or private sale(s)" the remaining NWTM property, but 11 USC 327 requires approval of auctioneers. Does Gearin think that the court made a blanket approval of any/all auctioneers -- especially one that has connections to the case (Fred Holabird looked at buying NWTM, either directly or through Rodger May).

    The judge asked Calvert to explain why $31K of his expenses were not disclosed in the monthly operating reports (UST-14 "Payments to Attorneys and Other Professionals (requires court approval)"). He explained what the expenses were for, but not why the payments weren't listed. I guess not explaining is better than writing "I goofed" or "I'm incompetent" or "I don't really understand those forms." Gearin was asked to provide authority for why the expenses did not need to be properly disclosed, and Gearin's response was the same: ignore the question and not answer it. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt?

    The judge asked about the store inventory, where it was located and when it was obtained, and if it was obtained during the case. Calvert answered at the hearing that it is stored in Kirkland, Washington. But his declaration under the penalty of perjury does not seem to mention where it is located or when it was obtained. Again, silence: Calver did not answer.

    There were questions about when the estate was considered administratively insolvent (meaning that the professionals might get paid some money, but there wouldn't be enough for creditors). Some things occurred in the case that would not have if the estate had been considered administratively insolvent since the beginning (e.g. creditors would not have had to file claims). The response was basically that there was hope that the company would become profitable (which seems valid to me), but this is a complex issue I haven't looked too far into.

    Calvert was asked to answer whether he learned in 2016 of a plan to take over the China business. Calvert denied that, saying that Wagner prepared a "basic business plan" to reorganize the company based on having almost all operations done in China, and provided a copy of the plan (really just financial projections). Calvert's denial under penalty of perjury conflicts with Northrup's statement (p5) that he shared a plan to take over the China business with a UCC member.

    Then the judge asked about an expense entry regarding a contract with Wagner. Calvert said in his declaration that Wagner produced a draft of a consignment agreement that was never finalized, that would have required court approval. The contract would have allowed Wagner to sell NWTM stock/store assets, send all payments to NWTM, and NWTM would pay Wagner a commission. It would have Wagner transfer the assets into local storage in Western Washington, and sell them on Amazon and eBay, shipping assets to warehouses as necessary, with Wagner owning and managing eBay/Amazon accounts. The inventory has been transferred to Western Washington, an 11 minute drive from Wagner's house, Wagner has taken over the Amazon account, Wagner has sold NWTM assets, yet there is no sign of Wagner making payments to NWTM. Yet Gearin said Wagner made the proposal in August, 2018 (which expense applications confirm to be August 14), the contract was dated July 5, 2018, but the original expense entry Judge Alston asked about was from May 31, 2018!

    Judge Alston next asked about dies, as it was a concern to the court and creditors: how many were there at the beginning, how many now, and where are they located? Calvert came up with "NWTM possessed thousands of dies." Huh. 400,000? 5,000? He clarified that there were 12,037 NWTM dies created for custom jobs, with the remaining NWTM dies (no number given) being for stock product. He says that he saw no evidence that the dies in China were owned by NWTM, and if they were, they might be impossible to recover. He did not state how many dies were there at the beginning, did not mention Medallic dies, did not mention how many stock dies were given to Medalcraft, and did not mention the 1,000s of dies Holabird auctioned in December.

    Judge Alston stated that local bankruptcy rules require for extradordinary expenses a statement of the date incurred, a description, the amount, and necessity. Calvert went over some (but not all, e.g. photography), but not a specific list (the word "extraordinary" does not appear in his declaration). Calvert stated that a $6,000 payment originally listed as "MEALS - TRAVEL" was really "Hours Worked".

    Calvert was asked about $26,000 of payments to Edgar Chacon in August, 2018 that Calvert had listed as "EXP REPORT" (at the hearing, Calvert said "I do not recall" what the expenses were for). Calvert has now declared that these were "out of pocket" expenses (who keeps $26,000 in their pocket?), for what appears to be equipment rental, airfare, supplies, postage, clean-up crew, and landfill costs(???). One example for a $8,427.91 payment to Chacon originally described as "EXP REPORT" was in the declaration as "EQ Rental, Supplies, Clean-up Crew Payment" -- that is all the detail given. Was Chacon writing checks to these people, or paying cash? Why would he write personal checks for equipment rental and clean-up crew, instead of NWTM? How did Chacon trust that he would be repaid the $26K, and not end up with an administrative claim? Is this related to the $80,000 of cash that Chacon shipped to Calvert, and/or the cash shipment Chacon sent to Calvert that was lost/stolen?

    Calvert was asked to provide emails regarding requests for auctioneers; he did not.

    Judge Alston also pointed out that the Trustee's company needed to eliminate "block billing", giving as an example 11 hours ($3,300) billed for "Sub-con review and analysis. Review of check activity per Homestreet. Obtain detailed activity from Homestreet bank activity; integrate into master bank data" that was in the "Investigation - Fraud" category, but then changed to the "Bank Database" category in the latest fee application. The judge said it would be a pain to unbundle, but it was self-inflicted. Calvert did not change a single thing with that entry.
    Last edited by valerb; 24th January 2019 at 10:04.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  6. #126
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    10,393

    Default

    (Page 2)

    Gearin's Declaration

    January 22, 2019 1:35PM EST

    At the December 7, 2017 hearing, Judge Alston asked Gearin for a declaration.
    First, Gearin was asked to provide authority for why Calvert could reimburse $31,000 of expenses without disclosing them in the monthly operating reports. I see nothing in his declaration addressing this.

    Next, Calvert and Gearin were asked to "both" explain why statements were made that if a liquidation occurred, the estate would be administratively solvent. I see nothing in his declaration addressing this. Perhaps Gearin believed that Calvert's explanation was sufficient, but Gearin was specifically asked to address this.

    Next, Gearin was asked to provide emails related to the resignation of the co-chair. He provided those. I'm covering the details of those separately.

    Gearin needed to address whether he received the letter from the UCC co-chair that Northrup was instructed to forward to the court (that Northrup never forwarded to the court). He admitted that he did receive a copy of the letter, forwarded from Northrup.

    At the hearing, Gearin said that he had permission from Northrup to make demands of the UCC members directly, rather than through Northrup. He said "I believe I had a conversation with Northrup before I sent that, in fact I am sure I did, I had a conversation before I sent that email and I told him what I was going to do, so he was aware that I was going to send this email to each of the committee members." He reiterated this in his declaration, stating that he and Northrup agreed that Gearin would email the UCC members. However, Northrup states that he has "no recollection of formally authorizing [Gearin] to contact Committee members". Hmmm.

    Gearin was asked what he said in a 42-minute phone call with the co-chair the day before the co-chair's resignation, and he did provide details (again, I'll be addressing that issue separately).
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  7. #127
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    10,393

    Default

    (Page 3)


    Northrup's Declaration

    January 21, 2019 8:50AM EST

    At the December 7, 2017 hearing, Judge Alston asked Northrup for a declaration.
    The first issue was the resignation of the co-chair of the UCC. It is complicated, but putting the pieces together, it seems that the co-chair offered to Northrup to resign, but was told that it was not necessary. It seems clear that he did not want to resign, but accepted that it might be necessary, and was willing to do so if needed -- and only did very shortly after Gearin went after UCC members individually with an email whose subject started with "Litigation Hold Notice". It seems from my reading that the resignation was done under the belief that it would help protect him against legal action.

    Judge Alston asked if the UCC voted for a forensic audit (Northrup had responded at the hearing "not formally"). In Northrup's response in the declaration, he says that 2 UCC members demanded an audit of Calvert's books, but that the UCC never voted to have an audit. He says that they voted to have a financial advisor, and that Northrup "understood Ms. Barrick’s principal potential duties to include reviewing monthly operating reports and financial projections, particularly including projections which the Committee expected the Trustee to present as part of a Plan of Reorganization." It is unclear how Northrup did not understand her duties to include an audit of the books if 2 UCC members were demanding that. It is also unclear how one UCC member stated that the UCC "voted to demand a forensic audit of Mr. Calvert's books", but Northrup says they did not. And it is unclear why Northrup says no vote was taken to have an audit if he was aware that 2 UCC members demanded an audit.

    Next, Northrup was asked to address whether the UCC approved the omission of some information from the UCC's response to the employment of a production manager (removed from a draft were their concerns that there was already a production manager, and what authority the manager would have to make personnel decisions). Northrup stated that Calvert opposed giving the manager the requested authority, and the prospective manager agreed. As for approval by the UCC, Northrup says that he wrote to the "point person" saying that Northrup was "recommending" a change of course, and the point person responded "Do what you think is best from the legal perspective ... So what would your amended text now say?". Northrup did not include any evidence that the UCC approved the change, aside from one member both saying to do what Northrup thinks best and asking to see the new text (in other words, that is NOT authorization).

    After that, Northrup was asked if the UCC wanted Northrup to take action to remove Calvert, and if so, why no action was taken. Northrup stated "At no time did the Committee ever cast a vote to have the Court remove the Trustee". Judge Alston asked if the UCC wanted the action, not if they voted. Northrup said he responded to the letter he was sent by the UCC co-chair requested Calvert be removed, but did not include a copy of it.

    Judge Alston asked to see the email of the UCC co-chair resigning if there was one. There was a phone call on March 14, 2017 where Northrup says the co-chair said he "would voluntarily resign from the Committee." This seemingly conflicts with the information from the co-chair, who said he offered to resign, and that Northrup said it was not necessary; Northrup did not deny this account. The co-chair specifically told Northrup on March 20, 2017 that he had not resigned, just offered to, and that Northrup said it was not necessary. The next day, Gearin sent his demand letter to UCC members (that may have been a violation of lawyer ethics), and by the next morning at 8:40AM the co-chair sent his official resignation to the U.S. Trustee, apparently under the impression that he would not be pursued legally if he resigned.

    Judge Alston asked Northrup how the disclosure of a settlement agreement could have been confidential if the agreement stated in it that it was to immediately be filed for approval. Northrup said that UCC members had been told that "strategic litigation information" was confidential. Northrup did not further address Judge Alston's question of how this specific information could have been confidential. Further, the information was disclosed by Northrup at the very end of a lengthy email response to the co-chair responding to his demand to have Calvert removed, in a sentence "By the way, good news, the Trustee has reached a settlement with Mr. Bressler." That was the source of the information that was given to Ross, with no hint that it was confidential or strategic litigation information.

    Next Northrup was asked the purpose of hiding the existence of a settlement agreement from Ross. I do not see this question addressed. This is critical, because if there was no benefit to keeping the existence of the agreement from Ross, and the agreement said to file it immediately, it could not have been confidential. If it was not confidential, the forced resignation of the UCC co-chair was a serious problem.

    Then Northrup was asked if he forwarded to Gearin the letter from the co-chair demanding the removal of Calvert. Northrup responded at the hearing that he did not remember; Judge Alston said that wasn't acceptable, that this may be the most critical question of the day, that he was concerned that Northrup "ratted out a client". Gearin responded at the hearing that he wasn't certain if Northrup forwarded him the letter (yet billed $270 to read and respond to it). Judge Alston said there was an allegation that the letter was forwarded by Northrup to Gearin, and it was be "stunning" if Gearin received it from Northrup. Northup forwarded the co-chair's email to Gearin 28 minutes after the co-chair sent the email. Northrup used the excuse that the co-chair demanded the document to be filed with the court as a public document. But, Northrup's action of not adhering to the demand turned it into a private document! I'm sure that the co-chair would have been thrilled for the email to have been forwarded to Gearin -- after it was filed with the court.

    Northrup was also asked to include if he was given permission by the co-chair to forward the email. Northrup chose not to address that, so presumably he did not have such permission.

    Finally, Northrup was asked if he authorized Gearin to contact the co-chair about the disclosure of confidential information. Northrup declared that he does not recall giving such permission. Northrup also said that it was OK for Gearin to do so, since the UCC's attorney does not represent individual members, and Gearin's email was sent to UCC members individually. However, Northrup also included an email showing that Gearin, upon seeing the letter from the co-chair demanding the removal of Calvert, requested that Northrup initiate an investigation. So Gearin originally tried to go through Northrup, not individually member, which seems to kill Northrup's argument that the UCC's attorney should not represent a UCC member individually.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  8. #128
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    10,393

    Default

    (page 4 of 4)


    This is the last page of four covering judge ordered Declarations to be submitted prior to their next court date on February 1st.



    Here are the court ordered Declarations by the Trustee (Calvert), his attorney (Gearin) and the attorney for the creditors committee (Northrup).
    Then there is an attached Declarations: Key Takeaways by About.ag who is covering all this. The comments after each question and answer are those from about.ag.
    My only comment is, the Balls on these guys must be really HUGE!! They have a lot more on the line than just trying to split $5M worth of billing between them out of a $2M pot.


    Declarations: Key Takeaways

    January 23, 2019 3:00PM EST

    The professionals either did a really lousy job with their declarations, or are hiding something (remember, there is $2M cash sitting in the bank riding on these declarations: they have a strong incentive to be as forthcoming as possible with $5M in billing between them). Some key takeaways:

    •Northup admitted that he immediately forwarded a (probably confidential and/or priviledged email) from the UCC co-chair to Gearin. Judge Alston said it would be "stunning" if this happened, that it might amount to "ratting out a client"; the judge appears to believe this would violate basic rules of conduct. Northrup uses the excuse that the co-chair intended the document to become public, but it never became public because Northrup never forwarded the letter to the court.

    •Gearin admitted to contacting UCC members directly, rather than through their attorneys, something that may be a violation of basic attorney ethics. Northrup at the December 7 hearing tried to use the excuse that there was a "joint defense" as part of the confidentiality agreement UCC members signed. Gearin instead declared that he originally asked Northrup to take care of getting emails from UCC members, but they agreed for Gearin to do so, and that Northrup was aware that Gearin was contacting the co-chair directly (which resulted in his resignation the next morning, although Gearin claims he did not require it). Northrup does not recall giving this permission, but believes it wasn't necessary as Gearin was contacting the UCC members as individuals, not the UCC itself (despite the fact that Gearin originally approached Northrup to have Northrup take care of it, and Northrup purportedly offered the co-chair advice about not resigning). Northrup apparently sat on the fact that he was expected to ask UCC members for emails, and never told them.

    •Calvert was asked both [1] about the dies, which has been a big issue since the beginning, and [2] about any auctions. He failed to disclose that thousands of dies were sold at auction in December, 2018. This is an issue because he failed to disclose this in his declaration, he never filed an application for employment of the auctioneer, and it really looks like he was hiding these assets (despite the fact that their value is minimal).

    •Calvert appears to have lied under penalty of perjury when he wrote of the inventory "The whole process was recorded on NWTM security tapes." However, I had previously discovered that while the inventory in Dayton was recorded on security tapes, there is nothing suggesting that the inventories at the other 2 locations were recorded.

    •Calvert was asked to "unbundle" his time entries, with the specific example given of his company billing for 11 hours for multiple tasks, and that while Judge Alston admitted it would be a pain, it was something that Calvert inflicted upon himself. Calvert did not unbundle the time entries, even keeping that 11 hour billing entry the same.

    •Calvert gave as an explanation why Edgar Chacon was paid $24,000 in August 2018 for "EXP REPORT" that they were "out of pocket expenses." For someone tasked by Calvert to ship $80,000 of cash uninsured, $24,000 may be considered an "out of pocket" expense! Calvert did list a few samples of what each payment was for, but each payment covered multiple expenses, which were not broken down.

    •Judge Alston inquired about an expense entry on May 31, 2018 of "Review P. Wagner contract", and asked Gearin and/or Calvert to include any contracts in their declaration. Gearin included a copy of a contract dated July 5, 2018 that Wagner apparently proposed on August 14, 2018. And Calvert said that was the only contract. So why did they not address the May 31, 2018 contract, that in court was represented as the one-and-only Wagner contract?

    •Northrup in a December, 2018 filing refers to a "plan [of Wagner] to take over the China business" that he communicated to a UCC member (the exact quote was taken from me, who got it from a filing by the UCC member). Yet Calvert declares on page 9 "I did not learn of a plan to take over the Chinese business by Mr. Wagner" (instead referring to a "business plan" (actually financial projections) to reorganize NWTM). This goes to the core of the shenanigans: An attorney and the Trustee have reported information that conflicts. So who is right?
    Last edited by valerb; 24th January 2019 at 10:03.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  9. #129
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    10,393

    Default

    One more Declaration not going to make the Judge happy with the Trustee and his attorney


    CEO Bill Atalla Declaration

    CEO Made Offer to Buy NWTM Assets

    January 25, 2019 12:50PM EST

    NWTM CEO Bill Atalla filed a declaration yesterday, indicating that he made a proposal earlier this month (through his attorney) to buy the intellectual property assets of NWTM and to take the store inventory on consignment. And that neither Calvert nor Gearin has responded to the offer.

    This is critical, as it involves what Sierra Mint is doing. The offer included among other things the Amazon Store (which Sierra Mint appears to have taken over), the NWTM trademark (which Sierra Mint is using at the Amazon Store), the NWTM copyrights, art, and designs (which Sierra Mint has been using). If Calvert entertained this offer, it would at least make it appear like he has nothing to do with Sierra Mint (people are concerned of wrongdoing; anything ranging from making promises to Wagner to funding Sierra Mint, although I have seen no evidence of such). But Calvert ignored the offer, as he has done numerous times before. Can we say 'suspicious'?


    Calvert looked the fool by simply saying he believes Wagner when Judge Alston asked him to investigate Sierra Mint's usage of NWTM assets. So this begs the question: if Calvert isn't colluding with Wagner, why ignore the offer? If the assets are worthless, as suggested in court, why not work with Atalla to try get some money for creditors? I believe Calvert would have a financial duty to look into such an offer.

    It seems that every action that Calvert takes involving Wagner and Sierra Mint makes it look like the two have some sort of agreement. Hopefully, Calvert will address this at the hearing. The only way I can see of distancing himself from Wagner is an unbiased investigation of the Sierra Mint business. Or accepting an offer for the assets Sierra Mint is using.
    I'm a proud member of Eggshellman's Liar, Shill, and bully club and a new member of the Super Jew Defense League!!!

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    821

    Default

    Are you talking to yourself

Posting Permissions

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