Perth Bullion Liquidation
- Thread starter nighttrader
- Start date
Sham Bolic
Member
"When you go back and look at the actual claim against them, and how spurious it was, it is ridiculous."
Where can we have a look at this info?
did you get any more feedback on this?
Doesn't the deed of release potentially make us waive our (and therefore our insurance underwriter's) right to claim damages against them?
The order of the supreme court says that the liquidator is justified in requesting the SDB holder to sign a deed of release at the time of collection and prior to release.
However, the liquidator is requiring the SDB holders to sign in advance (i.e. prior to making the collection appointment) which is not what the court said....
I think this is not fair, is it legal?
Also, the insurance was paid by the SDB holder to PBC,
and the liquidator has taken the position of PBC for the SDB holder,
who is now asking the SDB holder to potentially go against the underwriters interest in signing the deed including the waivers inside.
Doesn't this mean the liquidator is forcing the policy buyers to invalidate their insurance before collection????
The order of the supreme court says that the liquidator is justified in requesting the SDB holder to sign a deed of release at the time of collection and prior to release.
However, the liquidator is requiring the SDB holders to sign in advance (i.e. prior to making the collection appointment) which is not what the court said....
I think this is not fair, is it legal?
Also, the insurance was paid by the SDB holder to PBC,
and the liquidator has taken the position of PBC for the SDB holder,
who is now asking the SDB holder to potentially go against the underwriters interest in signing the deed including the waivers inside.
Doesn't this mean the liquidator is forcing the policy buyers to invalidate their insurance before collection????
I hit up the supreme court for a copy of the deed of release, as the supreme court order referred to it as an annexure but it wasn't included in the order released.
They didn't have it.....
My questions asking how I can be held by the supreme court to an order contained in a document they don't have were thoroughly unappreciated.
Next day it was posted to the liquidator's website under the same link as the original order, but now with the annexure attached.
They didn't have it.....
My questions asking how I can be held by the supreme court to an order contained in a document they don't have were thoroughly unappreciated.
Next day it was posted to the liquidator's website under the same link as the original order, but now with the annexure attached.
Given that others have mentioned having to pay a $350 fee to retrieve their metal, you may as well consider it gone.
I suggest you contact the liquidators, explain your situation and ask for special relief from the $350 fee.
It may well be easier for them to release the 4 ounces to you, rather than go through a 2-year process of submitting it to unclaimed monies or similar.
Sham Bolic
Member
4oz? thats worth about $72 - not worth worrying about.
Received this email nearly 10 days ago now after paying a ridiculous $350 collection fee.....and still nothing from RSM regarding my SMSF assets in my safety deposit box. Went to the police and they don't seem to can't help. I don't have enough money to pay huge legal costs to fight this. Something is seriously wrong with the legal system in Australia when regulated liquidator can't even identify a safety deposit box after help from the PB director to specifically identify the box. Something dodgey is definitely going on.......
Dear XXXX
I refer to your previous emails and booking request for Thursday 8 August 2019 at 8am.
Unfortunately, we have not been able to locate / identify your safety deposit box. Accordingly, the Liquidator is currently seeking urgent legal advice as to how he should proceed with releasing your goods in these circumstances.
In the meantime, your booking has been cancelled. It will be rescheduled once we have obtained some legal guidance in this matter.
Kind regards
CRIMINAL FROM RSM
RSM Australia Pty Ltd
Dear XXXX
I refer to your previous emails and booking request for Thursday 8 August 2019 at 8am.
Unfortunately, we have not been able to locate / identify your safety deposit box. Accordingly, the Liquidator is currently seeking urgent legal advice as to how he should proceed with releasing your goods in these circumstances.
In the meantime, your booking has been cancelled. It will be rescheduled once we have obtained some legal guidance in this matter.
Kind regards
CRIMINAL FROM RSM
RSM Australia Pty Ltd
Last edited:
Just curious, is this how liquidators generally operate? By asking to waive your claims against the liquidator before seeing whether your contents in the SDB are safe or not? So what happens if all your contents are not there since you have signed the waiver on top of paying the $350 fee that none of the SDB holders agreed on when they signed up for storage?
Also, if you find your box and find all your stuff isn't there, can you claim this with your insurance?
Also, if you find your box and find all your stuff isn't there, can you claim this with your insurance?
Sham Bolic
Member
I wondered that a few days ago and am now thinking that may be a VERY relevant question
I would Sign “ under duress” in the signature box
Sham Bolic
Member
Do you mean that as a joke or is that an actual legally recognized option? (well not in the sig box of course but next to your sig)
Last edited:
I don't know what's usual but these guys seem to be asking us to sign to be convenient for them.
Just happens that we need to waive our insurance to let them do that.
I don't believe they can legally enforce the pre-appointment deed signing, as the court said the are justified in requesting we sign at the time of collection.
They can ask, and it seems about 120 boxes have been collected.
Liquidators are the fifth biggest accounting firm on Earth. They were appointed by the Federal Court.
They drew the Short straw in my opinion, because people are getting organised.
My thinking is that the liquidators know this yet they chose to act this way, I'm trying to wonder why as you would think that the liquidators job is to distribute the property in the most efficient way possible.
So they would find the merchandise they could liquidate, pay the creditors and get a cut. Contents inside the SDB have nothing to do with this process and just needs to be returned to the owners by verification. You should have the keys that match the boxes, how can it be more difficult than that?
So they would find the merchandise they could liquidate, pay the creditors and get a cut. Contents inside the SDB have nothing to do with this process and just needs to be returned to the owners by verification. You should have the keys that match the boxes, how can it be more difficult than that?