Tulving Customers from 2004-2014: Your Purchasing Data To Be Given Away
AboutAg
Posts: 201 ✭✭
[If you know any of the 35,000 or so people who used The Tulving Company since 2004, you may want to pass this information on to them]
The Chapter 7 Trustee in the bankruptcy of The Tulving Company has made a motion with the court to allow them to GIVE AWAY paper records of The Tulving Company customers from 2004 through 2010 to Great Collections. At no cost, and with zero apparent benefit to anyone except Great Collections.
In early 2015, Great Collection bought the Tulving customer list/files from 2011 until they shut down ("Customer List - January 2011 through Petition Date" and "Customer Files - January 2011 through Petition Date") for $150,000, in electronic format. It is unclear why January 2011 was chosen, but it was. The judge saw that time period, creditors saw it, some customers saw it, and everyone at the time seemed to think it was an acceptable deal (later, not so much, as the professionals likely will have billed $137,897 for that one transaction).
Despite the contract specifying electronic records from 2011 on, Great Collections now wants the paper records going back to 2004. In other words, Great Collections will have access to all bullion purchases and sales of The Tulving Company customers since 2004, even though there appears to be no legal (or moral) reason why they should have them. They bought records from 2011 through present, in electronic format, which includes neither 2004-nor paper records.
When I asked the new Chapter 7 Trustee was Great Collections should get the data, her attorney responded and said "there is no reason" why Great Collections should not get the documents. Not "We are required to" or "We want to to be nice, but don't have to" -- they are simply because they can. They are putting the desires of a third party before the needs of 35,000 customers and 400 creditors.
If you feel that this is not right, please let the Chapter 7 Trustee know. Her name is Weneta Kosmala, and can be reached at wkosmala@kosmalalaw.com. If she chooses to continue with the motion, I believe it would require legal action to stop (which I imagine would be awfully embarrassing if the media found it).
The Chapter 7 Trustee in the bankruptcy of The Tulving Company has made a motion with the court to allow them to GIVE AWAY paper records of The Tulving Company customers from 2004 through 2010 to Great Collections. At no cost, and with zero apparent benefit to anyone except Great Collections.
In early 2015, Great Collection bought the Tulving customer list/files from 2011 until they shut down ("Customer List - January 2011 through Petition Date" and "Customer Files - January 2011 through Petition Date") for $150,000, in electronic format. It is unclear why January 2011 was chosen, but it was. The judge saw that time period, creditors saw it, some customers saw it, and everyone at the time seemed to think it was an acceptable deal (later, not so much, as the professionals likely will have billed $137,897 for that one transaction).
Despite the contract specifying electronic records from 2011 on, Great Collections now wants the paper records going back to 2004. In other words, Great Collections will have access to all bullion purchases and sales of The Tulving Company customers since 2004, even though there appears to be no legal (or moral) reason why they should have them. They bought records from 2011 through present, in electronic format, which includes neither 2004-nor paper records.
When I asked the new Chapter 7 Trustee was Great Collections should get the data, her attorney responded and said "there is no reason" why Great Collections should not get the documents. Not "We are required to" or "We want to to be nice, but don't have to" -- they are simply because they can. They are putting the desires of a third party before the needs of 35,000 customers and 400 creditors.
If you feel that this is not right, please let the Chapter 7 Trustee know. Her name is Weneta Kosmala, and can be reached at wkosmala@kosmalalaw.com. If she chooses to continue with the motion, I believe it would require legal action to stop (which I imagine would be awfully embarrassing if the media found it).
0
Comments
Out of the loop here I guess but what is the connection between tulving and great collections ?
If anyone needed yet another reason to pay cash when you are buying bullion, anonymity is a good one.
Fortunately, GC is a very reputable outfit and their Ian Russell is a regular on the US Coin Forum. You might address your concerns directly to him.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Out of the loop here I guess but what is the connection between tulving and great collections ?
If anyone needed yet another reason to pay cash when you are buying bullion, anonymity is a good one.
Great Collections is a coin auction company started by someone who used to have high level positions at Spectrum Group, which owns A-Mark Precious Metals, and they were the high bidder on the Tulving customer list a bit over a year ago.
This may come as a surprise, but it is not uncommon for one business to sell its customer contact info to another business. I doubt that "privacy" info such as credit card numbers are being exchanged in the sale of the customer list to GC - have you asked if this is the case?
The problem I have isn't the sale itself (they paid $150,000 to buy the Tulving customer list and customer files from 2011 through the end of operations). The problem is that the Tulving Company bankruptcy Trustee wants to give them records going back to 2004, which they did NOT purchase.
If I had a bullion business and was shutting down and sold them my 2011 through present customer records, and a year later found old records and decided to be nice and give them to GC, that's fine (assuming no privacy issues). But with the bankruptcy, that just isn't right: if the creditors are going to give something to someone for free, they need to have a say in it.
Giving GC 10 years of customer records when they paid for 3 just seems wrong to me (especially after creditors lost out on this sale, with more money ending up in the pockets of the bankruptcy professionals than came in from the sale originally).
This may come as a surprise, but it is not uncommon for one business to sell its customer contact info to another business. I doubt that "privacy" info such as credit card numbers are being exchanged in the sale of the customer list to GC - have you asked if this is the case?
The problem I have isn't the sale itself (they paid $150,000 to buy the Tulving customer list and customer files from 2011 through the end of operations). The problem is that the Tulving Company bankruptcy Trustee wants to give them records going back to 2004, which they did NOT purchase.
If I had a bullion business and was shutting down and sold them my 2011 through present customer records, and a year later found old records and decided to be nice and give them to GC, that's fine (assuming no privacy issues). But with the bankruptcy, that just isn't right: if the creditors are going to give something to someone for free, they need to have a say in it.
Giving GC 10 years of customer records when they paid for 3 just seems wrong to me (especially after creditors lost out on this sale, with more money ending up in the pockets of the bankruptcy professionals than came in from the sale originally).
So if GC paid for the extra years, what would be the financial benefit to the creditors, specifically those customers who paid for bullion but never got delivery?
Who got stiffed worse, the customers or Tulving's suppliers?
Who got stiffed worse, the customers or Tulving's suppliers?
If GC did pay for the extra years (which I doubt they would), the money would be distributed to creditors (after the professionals get paid).
I'd say the customers ended up with over 99% of the loss. The credit card company was owed $401.75, the IRS was owed $1,752.11, Ford Motor Company $ 2,159, and $9.8K in local taxes. Then there is $175K that was owed to a subsidiary of A-Mark Precious Metals, but it was backed by collateral (coins they had possession of). And then there is the landlord that put in claims of nearly $1M, but there is a $1.9M adversary lawsuit against him, and he was aware of Tulving's financial difficulties, so I don't really count that. The customers, all told, were owed about $15.7M according to the latest court filing.