Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Message
Author
Michael Sopher
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1797
Joined: April 11th, 2010, 10:58 am
Location: NYC

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#551 Post by Michael Sopher » March 11th, 2014, 7:29 am

The wines are not floating loose in storage... not most of them anyway. A particular bottle of 1982 Trotanoy is more than likely in a case that is tagged to its owner... It may be label damaged or the particular bottle in that particular case may actually have gone missing from whatever cause but it is not mixed with the other theoretical 42 bottles.

The bidder is buying the business and its receivables.. they may pay 50 cents on the dollar for the receivables since they come with the bother of reuniting owners in order to get paid... and they will charge for pulling and delivering the cases to owners who do pay off receivables and want the cases out. but many owners need to store the wine somewhere (away from bodies of water) so there is some incremental value in the customer as well... I know if Vintage Wine Warehouse or Domaine end up with my goods... after inspection they will keep the goods...

There would prob be an inventory done as part of transfer so a new buyer should not be liable for events prior to the sale.

So it isn't simple but the competitors are looking at it and potentially preparing a number...

And some board members may have gotten some wine out... if so, they could comment on what they found


Mark Golodetz wrote:Give somebody possession of wines, with no stake at all, and asking him (or her) to deal with the fall out from the missing and the damaged bottles, and then make them responsible for distribution, when most of them are already lawyered up.

Who for instance gets a particular bottle of 1982 Trotanoy when there 43 floating around in storage? (that is an example, I have no idea what is there). And then we already know wine is damaged, missing, probably pilfered. And can one prove when the bottles did go missing, and could the new buyer find himself liable?

Yeah, this is a headache which no sane person would want.

Marc Lazar
Posts: 159
Joined: June 24th, 2009, 6:45 am

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#552 Post by Marc Lazar » March 22nd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Friday evening at 5pm was the deadline to submit bids. I believe they are then reviewed by the trustee and those which are deemed qualified will be named early next week, prior to the auction proceeding.

Im being told that two groups submitted bids, subject to approval from the trustee. So conceptually, we could have two bidders, one bidder or no bidders, depending on the trustees review. Im also told that in certain cases a party can submit a bid after the deadline (yesterday) but that such events are quite unusual.

forgive the lack of additional detail, but as things become known and public, I'll share what I can.

User avatar
J a y H a c k
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 13703
Joined: May 29th, 2009, 9:59 am

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#553 Post by J a y H a c k » March 22nd, 2014, 8:39 pm

Mark:

Although unusual, the judge has discretion to allow others to bid. We represented a trustee on a Chapter 7 land sale about 15 years ago and there were a bunch of qualified bidders with the stalking horse bid at $5.5 million. One of the major resort developers (I think it was Starwood) showed up in front of the judge and said that they hadn't bothered to qualify but they wanted to bid and would bid over $5.5 million. The judge agreed and the next thing we knew, the bidding, which was held in open court, got to about $8.5 million. It could also happen here, but is unlikely because buying land is a lot simpler than buying this business, and a new bidder would need a lot of due diligence.
Yes, that's a DM of 1978 Mouton!

You can read my Financial Institutions Law Blog at https://www.gdblaw.com/blog?practiceID=4985.

David Schliecker
Posts: 224
Joined: June 16th, 2009, 11:58 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#554 Post by David Schliecker » April 1st, 2014, 7:06 am

Has anyone heard anything new on this?

T o l g a O g u z
Posts: 12
Joined: February 20th, 2013, 5:31 pm

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#555 Post by T o l g a O g u z » April 7th, 2014, 1:59 pm

I haven't. Anyone else? I even emailed the trustee.

David Schliecker
Posts: 224
Joined: June 16th, 2009, 11:58 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#556 Post by David Schliecker » April 13th, 2014, 12:49 pm

As I follow up, I posted the above question pre knowing that Guaranty Wine Storage won the bid. Has anyone had any direct communication with them post bid or even anyone at Winecare as to what happens next? I sent emails last week to an address for Guaranty that I found on their website and to someone at Winecare but haven't heard anything yet. To give them the benefit of the doubt maybe they are waiting for paperwork to clear first?

Mitchell Rabinowitz
Posts: 55
Joined: January 30th, 2013, 6:41 pm

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#557 Post by Mitchell Rabinowitz » April 13th, 2014, 2:17 pm

Nothing

Michael Sopher
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1797
Joined: April 11th, 2010, 10:58 am
Location: NYC

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#558 Post by Michael Sopher » April 21st, 2014, 2:33 pm

All,

Check your mailboxes for a mail from Guarantee wine storage announcing themselves as our new storage provider...

Mitchell Rabinowitz
Posts: 55
Joined: January 30th, 2013, 6:41 pm

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#559 Post by Mitchell Rabinowitz » April 21st, 2014, 4:45 pm

I can't believe it. They did the one thing that would convince me to remove the wine ASAP

User avatar
Chuck Miller
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2300
Joined: June 1st, 2009, 7:58 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#560 Post by Chuck Miller » April 21st, 2014, 5:54 pm

Mitchell Rabinowitz wrote:I can't believe it. They did the one thing that would convince me to remove the wine ASAP
Which is...?
Chuck Miller

User avatar
Eric LeVine
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 12450
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 8:58 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#561 Post by Eric LeVine » April 21st, 2014, 6:16 pm

Are you able to remove wine yet?
-Eric LeVine (ITB)
It rhymes with wine...

Michael Sopher
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1797
Joined: April 11th, 2010, 10:58 am
Location: NYC

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#562 Post by Michael Sopher » April 21st, 2014, 6:24 pm

Eric LeVine wrote:Are you able to remove wine yet?
That is a silly question.... no, the wine has to move to the new owners facility and be reinventoried and then they may arrange access... In this sad story I am happy to head towards the summer with a solvent entity in custody of my wine.... They do want to monetize the receivables they bought though which will require allowing access...

This is forcing me to age my cellar...

Tom G l a s g o w
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 7104
Joined: February 19th, 2010, 2:01 pm

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#563 Post by Tom G l a s g o w » April 21st, 2014, 6:42 pm

Michael Sopher wrote:
Eric LeVine wrote:Are you able to remove wine yet?
That is a silly question.... no, the wine has to move to the new owners facility and be reinventoried and then they may arrange access... In this sad story I am happy to head towards the summer with a solvent entity in custody of my wine.... They do want to monetize the receivables they bought though which will require allowing access...

This is forcing me to age my cellar...
Given the lack of information in this debacle, it isn't a silly question.

User avatar
Ron Kramer
Posts: 7124
Joined: June 6th, 2009, 4:09 pm
Location: Near Boston

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#564 Post by Ron Kramer » April 21st, 2014, 6:51 pm

In this sad story I am happy to head towards the summer with a solvent entity in custody of my wine.... They do want to monetize the receivables they bought though which will require allowing access...


This is forcing me to age my cellar..
Given the lack of information in this debacle, it isn't a silly question.

I agree, do I understand you folks actually do not have direct ownership of your wines?

User avatar
J a y H a c k
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 13703
Joined: May 29th, 2009, 9:59 am

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#565 Post by J a y H a c k » April 21st, 2014, 7:14 pm

Ron Kramer wrote: . . . I agree, do I understand you folks actually do not have direct ownership of your wines?
nemo dat quod non habet. If the trustee did not own it, then the trustee could not have transferred ownership to the new storage provider.
Yes, that's a DM of 1978 Mouton!

You can read my Financial Institutions Law Blog at https://www.gdblaw.com/blog?practiceID=4985.

Tom G l a s g o w
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 7104
Joined: February 19th, 2010, 2:01 pm

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#566 Post by Tom G l a s g o w » April 21st, 2014, 7:22 pm

J a y H a c k wrote:
Ron Kramer wrote: . . . I agree, do I understand you folks actually do not have direct ownership of your wines?
nemo dat quod non habet. If the trustee did not own it, then the trustee could not have transferred ownership to the new storage provider.
So the customers no longer own their wine? How did they lose it?

Michael Sopher
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1797
Joined: April 11th, 2010, 10:58 am
Location: NYC

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#567 Post by Michael Sopher » April 21st, 2014, 7:27 pm

We still own our wine. Getting it is another story. Eric's question is only silly in that it would imply a final resolution of the story... we have been dragged along for 18 months

User avatar
gene keenan
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3210
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 12:29 pm
Location: San Francisco

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#568 Post by gene keenan » April 22nd, 2014, 1:37 am

I love how patient you all are after such a great passage of time. I could not have done the same. It must be nice to be so rich as to be so casual.
Jerry loved well aged BV Private Reserve Georges De Latour

Tom G l a s g o w
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 7104
Joined: February 19th, 2010, 2:01 pm

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#569 Post by Tom G l a s g o w » April 22nd, 2014, 4:13 am

gene keenan wrote:I love how patient you all are after such a great passage of time. I could not have done the same. It must be nice to be so rich as to be so casual.
How do you know the customers are rich? All I've noticed is resignation from the posters to wait out a bad situation. This was never a priority for the court and if the bankruptcy judge doesn't want to move the case along then it sits.

Michael Sopher
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1797
Joined: April 11th, 2010, 10:58 am
Location: NYC

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#570 Post by Michael Sopher » April 22nd, 2014, 5:49 am

gene keenan wrote:I love how patient you all are after such a great passage of time. I could not have done the same. It must be nice to be so rich as to be so casual.
difference between casual about it and being resigned to the futility of fighting. Big collectors with millions of $$ there can make sense of fighting. What I had there was $15k before whatever damage and value hit... This has taken way too long... but moving from Chapter 11 to liquidation was a positive step. New owners who are a running business is a positive step. It will be months before I see my wine, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel... I have heard from a guy who got some out that his labels were in varying levels of water damaged condition from rippled to ruined... but his wine tasted fine. So I wait... what choice have I got. But if the original owner of the place is ever on the sidewalk in front of me... he should hope no busses are coming..

David Schliecker
Posts: 224
Joined: June 16th, 2009, 11:58 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#571 Post by David Schliecker » April 22nd, 2014, 7:17 am

gene keenan wrote:I love how patient you all are after such a great passage of time. I could not have done the same. It must be nice to be so rich as to be so casual.
I wish I were rich to be casual about this whole ordeal... I moved into WineCare after downsizing from a house and was planning on drinking "inventory" for the next few years instead of buying. I had to weigh estimated legal costs against the actual value of my wine to decide if it was financially worth it. Let's just say I landed on the side of waiting it out.

User avatar
Eric LeVine
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 12450
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 8:58 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#572 Post by Eric LeVine » April 22nd, 2014, 7:33 am

gene keenan wrote:I love how patient you all are after such a great passage of time. I could not have done the same. It must be nice to be so rich as to be so casual.
That is just WAAAAAY out of line and callous.
-Eric LeVine (ITB)
It rhymes with wine...

User avatar
Jay Miller
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 15024
Joined: June 19th, 2009, 5:18 pm
Location: Jersey City

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#573 Post by Jay Miller » April 22nd, 2014, 7:40 am

gene keenan wrote:I love how patient you all are after such a great passage of time. I could not have done the same. It must be nice to be so rich as to be so casual.
Um, this is a really weird post. Were you going for funny? If so you should clarify because it doesn't come through.
Ripe fruit isn't necessarily a flaw.

User avatar
gene keenan
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3210
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 12:29 pm
Location: San Francisco

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#574 Post by gene keenan » April 22nd, 2014, 11:29 pm

Jay Miller wrote:
gene keenan wrote:I love how patient you all are after such a great passage of time. I could not have done the same. It must be nice to be so rich as to be so casual.
Um, this is a really weird post. Were you going for funny? If so you should clarify because it doesn't come through.
I thought it was pretty obvious. I have followed the thread since the beginning: It was quite apparent, based on information given that nothing could be done regardless of money.
Jerry loved well aged BV Private Reserve Georges De Latour

philippe jordan
Posts: 2
Joined: March 25th, 2012, 10:05 am

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#575 Post by philippe jordan » April 23rd, 2014, 11:39 am

A few approximate stat's.

Out of 226 line items I stored at Wincare only 35 managed to be clean. Put another way apx 85 pct of the bottles I have recovered from Winecare are damaged : Water Stained Labels, Bin Soiled Scuffed Labels, Labels Missing altogether, Lose Labels, Torn Labels.

Michael Sopher
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1797
Joined: April 11th, 2010, 10:58 am
Location: NYC

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#576 Post by Michael Sopher » April 23rd, 2014, 12:18 pm

Those are pretty different levels of damage... missing labels being the worst obviously. curious if you could apply rough percentages to each? My stuff was not investment grade so water stains and scuffs matter less to me... not like it is good but at this point I'll be happy to drink the stuff. Have you opened any bottles? and if so, what did you find in terms of damage to contents as opposed to labels?.

Your stats do indicate just how full of it the Winecare team was... and now some of them are part of the new team... excellent news... (though the bad direction did come from Limbocker)
philippe jordan wrote:A few approximate stat's.

Out of 226 line items I stored at Wincare only 35 managed to be clean. Put another way apx 85 pct of the bottles I have recovered from Winecare are damaged : Water Stained Labels, Bin Soiled Scuffed Labels, Labels Missing altogether, Lose Labels, Torn Labels.
Last edited by Michael Sopher on April 23rd, 2014, 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mark Golodetz
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 7242
Joined: May 29th, 2009, 8:49 pm

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#577 Post by Mark Golodetz » April 23rd, 2014, 12:24 pm

philippe jordan wrote:A few approximate stat's.

Out of 226 line items I stored at Wincare only 35 managed to be clean. Put another way apx 85 pct of the bottles I have recovered from Winecare are damaged : Water Stained Labels, Bin Soiled Scuffed Labels, Labels Missing altogether, Lose Labels, Torn Labels.
Do the wines taste the way you would have expected?
ITB

User avatar
J a y H a c k
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 13703
Joined: May 29th, 2009, 9:59 am

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#578 Post by J a y H a c k » April 23rd, 2014, 12:43 pm

Did you get all the bottles you were supposed to get? That would be my biggest concern.
Yes, that's a DM of 1978 Mouton!

You can read my Financial Institutions Law Blog at https://www.gdblaw.com/blog?practiceID=4985.

User avatar
John Morris
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 18057
Joined: June 21st, 2009, 2:09 pm
Location: Gotham

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#579 Post by John Morris » April 23rd, 2014, 2:53 pm

Tom G l a s g o w wrote:
J a y H a c k wrote:
Ron Kramer wrote: . . . I agree, do I understand you folks actually do not have direct ownership of your wines?
nemo dat quod non habet. If the trustee did not own it, then the trustee could not have transferred ownership to the new storage provider.
So the customers no longer own their wine? How did they lose it?
This is a case where possession truly is nine tenths of the law!
"But they told me there would be a hand basket."

"I'm not slurring my words. I'm speaking cursive."

User avatar
D@v1dZ
Posts: 3490
Joined: December 14th, 2009, 6:49 am

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#580 Post by D@v1dZ » April 23rd, 2014, 3:47 pm

Well, its more of a case where Jay doesn't know what the heck he is talking about.
John Morris wrote:
Tom G l a s g o w wrote:
J a y H a c k wrote:nemo dat quod non habet. If the trustee did not own it, then the trustee could not have transferred ownership to the new storage provider.
So the customers no longer own their wine? How did they lose it?
This is a case where possession truly is nine tenths of the law!

User avatar
John Morris
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 18057
Joined: June 21st, 2009, 2:09 pm
Location: Gotham

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#581 Post by John Morris » April 23rd, 2014, 4:07 pm

I interpreted him to mean that the ownership remains with the customers since the trustee never had ownership and therefore couldn't transfer it.

The point of my comment was that, since the new guys have possession, they have the upper hand, even if they don't own the wine.
Last edited by John Morris on April 23rd, 2014, 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"But they told me there would be a hand basket."

"I'm not slurring my words. I'm speaking cursive."

User avatar
D@v1dZ
Posts: 3490
Joined: December 14th, 2009, 6:49 am

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#582 Post by D@v1dZ » April 23rd, 2014, 4:08 pm

John Morris wrote:I interpreted him to mean that the ownership remains with the customers since the trustee never had ownership and therefore couldn't transfer it.

Sure hope so.

Michael Steiner
Posts: 53
Joined: June 9th, 2009, 3:08 pm
Location: Upper West Side

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#583 Post by Michael Steiner » April 23rd, 2014, 4:17 pm

According to their website...

http://www.winecare.com

"Winecare Storage is the best wine storage facility on the East Coast:"

UGH. I have 30+ cases "somewhere" that I put into storage in the Fall of 2007 before I moved out of the country for a year. It's just a depressing scenario on all levels. If I ever get these wines back and they are drinkable, there will be one HUGE fiesta on the upper west side. You in Sopher?

All the wines will be served blind, LITERALLY. BAGS NOT NEEDED.

FML.

User avatar
John Morris
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 18057
Joined: June 21st, 2009, 2:09 pm
Location: Gotham

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#584 Post by John Morris » April 23rd, 2014, 4:28 pm

Michael Steiner wrote: All the wines will be served blind, LITERALLY. BAGS NOT NEEDED.
:)
"But they told me there would be a hand basket."

"I'm not slurring my words. I'm speaking cursive."

Michael Sopher
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1797
Joined: April 11th, 2010, 10:58 am
Location: NYC

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#585 Post by Michael Sopher » April 24th, 2014, 6:35 am

This is exactly the case.. I still own my wine, that was never in doubt (and the liquidation papers make it very clear that the wine was not for sale)... but possession means they keep charging me for storage for quite a while. They say it will all be in the new warehouse in 45 days where it will be prepared for inventory and placement on the racks (it was inventoried for months and months in the old place)... then they will allow plans for access... months and months more. Maybe New Years 2014/2015 I'll be opening a bottle...

But if these guys are smart and want to do anything more than charge what they can while the wine is held hostage... and maybe actually gain a long term customer or two... they should get cracking, provide actual service instead of excuses and let us see what we have and get some of it back. Every client wants to inspect at a minimum... until they allow that we are just an angry mob that will be angry at a new group of people. I am going to try and contact someone that is not part of the old problematic team to express my point of view. Who knows, maybe these people read this board to see what is being said.
John Morris wrote:I interpreted him to mean that the ownership remains with the customers since the trustee never had ownership and therefore couldn't transfer it.

The point of my comment was that, since the new guys have possession, they have the upper hand, even if they don't own the wine.
Last edited by Michael Sopher on April 24th, 2014, 7:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
J a y H a c k
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 13703
Joined: May 29th, 2009, 9:59 am

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#586 Post by J a y H a c k » April 24th, 2014, 6:56 am

D. Zyl3rb3rg wrote:Well, its more of a case where Jay doesn't know what the heck he is talking about. . . .
I really try to avoid personalizing responses, but this one deserves it.

You want to put some money on it, moron. You need to go back to kindergarten and learn how to read before you pass judgment on other people's analysis. I have discussed the issue with the trustee and I have read her papers and she happens to agree with me. The trustee never owned the wine. Therefore, the trustee did not pass ownership to the new service provider. Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet is a very important legal principle that I suppose some snot nosed kid right out of law school never bothered to learn despite the fact that he had to collect four degrees before getting a real job. It means no one gives what he does not have. Since the trustee was a bailee, the trustee had at most a possessory interest. The issue of the trustee's right to pass that possessory interest to the new service company presents a fascinating legal issue that will almost certainly not be litigated in this case because passing the possessory interest is advantageous to everyone whose interests were passed.

MODERATORS - If you think this response is too shrill, you can ban me. I haven't been banned since I suggested that Ken Starr was born 60 years too late because he should have been Attorney General for the Third Reich and Squirrel banned me on Ebob.
Yes, that's a DM of 1978 Mouton!

You can read my Financial Institutions Law Blog at https://www.gdblaw.com/blog?practiceID=4985.

User avatar
John Morris
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 18057
Joined: June 21st, 2009, 2:09 pm
Location: Gotham

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#587 Post by John Morris » April 24th, 2014, 7:16 am

Jay -- In fairness to David, your original statement "If the trustee did not own it, then the trustee could not have transferred ownership to the new storage provider," could be read two ways. When I first saw it, I thought you were saying that the trustee HAD transferred ownership, which he could only do if he had owned it to begin with. In the context of other posters who seemed to think the new operators had acquired ownership of the wine, it was easy to misread what you said. On rereading it, I realized that you meant he never owned it and therefore couldn't transfer it.
"But they told me there would be a hand basket."

"I'm not slurring my words. I'm speaking cursive."

Michael Sopher
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1797
Joined: April 11th, 2010, 10:58 am
Location: NYC

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#588 Post by Michael Sopher » April 24th, 2014, 7:18 am

Thanks Jay. While I knew that ownership was never lost I have appreciated your legal knowledge and postings on this situation from the start. I know I speak for many of the poor souls in the boat with me that we owe you a drink. And as Steiner points out... we can do it blind and guess what it is I poured for you

J a y H a c k wrote:
D. Zyl3rb3rg wrote:Well, its more of a case where Jay doesn't know what the heck he is talking about. . . .
I really try to avoid personalizing responses, but this one deserves it.

You want to put some money on it, moron. You need to go back to kindergarten and learn how to read before you pass judgment on other people's analysis. I have discussed the issue with the trustee and I have read her papers and she happens to agree with me. The trustee never owned the wine. Therefore, the trustee did not pass ownership to the new service provider. Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet is a very important legal principle that I suppose some snot nosed kid right out of law school never bothered to learn despite the fact that he had to collect four degrees before getting a real job. It means no one gives what he does not have. Since the trustee was a bailee, the trustee had at most a possessory interest. The issue of the trustee's right to pass that possessory interest to the new service company presents a fascinating legal issue that will almost certainly not be litigated in this case because passing the possessory interest is advantageous to everyone whose interests were passed.

MODERATORS - If you think this response is too shrill, you can ban me. I haven't been banned since I suggested that Ken Starr was born 60 years too late because he should have been Attorney General for the Third Reich and Squirrel banned me on Ebob.

User avatar
Corey N.
Posts: 27227
Joined: November 18th, 2010, 8:36 pm

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#589 Post by Corey N. » April 24th, 2014, 8:45 am

Michael Sopher wrote:Thanks Jay. While I knew that ownership was never lost I have appreciated your legal knowledge and postings on this situation from the start. I know I speak for many of the poor souls in the boat with me that we owe you a drink. And as Steiner points out... we can do it blind and guess what it is I poured for you
+1.

I know f*ck all about bankruptcy law and Jay's been incredibly helpful.
I'm with Corey on this. - Todd W.

Nøv¡¢k

User avatar
D@v1dZ
Posts: 3490
Joined: December 14th, 2009, 6:49 am

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#590 Post by D@v1dZ » April 24th, 2014, 8:51 am

You've given incorrect advice repeatedly in this thread, although this last episode was just a case of bad writing, rather than bad advice. You may not trust the views of some snot nosed kid, but snot-nosed kid had a pop who did bankruptcy work for a long time, and he agreed with me back when we'd look through this thread together that when it came to bankruptcy legal advice, you were aptly named.

Not that there was much anyone could've done for themselves here given the crappy facts.
J a y H a c k wrote:
D. Zyl3rb3rg wrote:Well, its more of a case where Jay doesn't know what the heck he is talking about. . . .
I really try to avoid personalizing responses, but this one deserves it.

You want to put some money on it, moron. You need to go back to kindergarten and learn how to read before you pass judgment on other people's analysis. I have discussed the issue with the trustee and I have read her papers and she happens to agree with me. The trustee never owned the wine. Therefore, the trustee did not pass ownership to the new service provider. Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet is a very important legal principle that I suppose some snot nosed kid right out of law school never bothered to learn despite the fact that he had to collect four degrees before getting a real job. It means no one gives what he does not have. Since the trustee was a bailee, the trustee had at most a possessory interest. The issue of the trustee's right to pass that possessory interest to the new service company presents a fascinating legal issue that will almost certainly not be litigated in this case because passing the possessory interest is advantageous to everyone whose interests were passed.

MODERATORS - If you think this response is too shrill, you can ban me. I haven't been banned since I suggested that Ken Starr was born 60 years too late because he should have been Attorney General for the Third Reich and Squirrel banned me on Ebob.

User avatar
Rick Smith
Posts: 3070
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 1:41 pm
Location: Marlboro, NJ

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#591 Post by Rick Smith » July 8th, 2014, 12:51 pm

Any updates for those of us on the sidelines?

Michael Sopher
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1797
Joined: April 11th, 2010, 10:58 am
Location: NYC

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#592 Post by Michael Sopher » July 10th, 2014, 8:10 pm

Rick Smith wrote:Any updates for those of us on the sidelines?
I got an email this eve that inventory is back online. I checked mine and all my cases are represented. All cases were supposedly moved to the new facility in NJ with the new business owner. Are all the cases on the inventory report actually in existence? what is the condition of the bottles??? Will I be able to drink it on the 2nd anniversary of the storm?? Stay tuned

User avatar
Al Osterheld
Posts: 6741
Joined: March 15th, 2009, 5:47 am
Location: SF Bay

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#593 Post by Al Osterheld » July 10th, 2014, 8:40 pm

Good luck, hope it turns out well for you.

-Al

User avatar
Jay Miller
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 15024
Joined: June 19th, 2009, 5:18 pm
Location: Jersey City

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#594 Post by Jay Miller » July 11th, 2014, 6:41 am

Congratulations and good luck!
Ripe fruit isn't necessarily a flaw.

Michael Sopher
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1797
Joined: April 11th, 2010, 10:58 am
Location: NYC

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#595 Post by Michael Sopher » July 11th, 2014, 7:13 am

We'll do some blind tastings coming up... not because we covered the labels with foil though....

Michael Sopher
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1797
Joined: April 11th, 2010, 10:58 am
Location: NYC

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#596 Post by Michael Sopher » August 4th, 2014, 8:50 am

Latest update - got my new storage contract from MANA Wine - the storage company that bought Winecare out of Chapter 7. I either have to pay $20 per case for the transfer costs or sign a 2 year contract.

I think I have to inspect the wines first, see what I got in what condition and go from there.

Anyone else figure out their next move?

User avatar
Berry Crawford
Posts: 10024
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 8:16 pm
Location: Near the Sierra Foothills

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#597 Post by Berry Crawford » August 4th, 2014, 9:31 am

Michael Sopher wrote:Latest update - got my new storage contract from MANA Wine - the storage company that bought Winecare out of Chapter 7. I either have to pay $20 per case for the transfer costs or sign a 2 year contract.
That sounds like extortion to me

Michael Sopher
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1797
Joined: April 11th, 2010, 10:58 am
Location: NYC

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#598 Post by Michael Sopher » August 4th, 2014, 9:39 am

Berry Crawford wrote:
Michael Sopher wrote:Latest update - got my new storage contract from MANA Wine - the storage company that bought Winecare out of Chapter 7. I either have to pay $20 per case for the transfer costs or sign a 2 year contract.
That sounds like extortion to me

Well, the first word that came to my mind was ransom.... It is probably intended as an inducement to keep clients it may be more likely to compel them to pay the fee and go elsewhere with a storage co that doesn't start with such a misstep. Short term win/long term loss...

User avatar
Corey N.
Posts: 27227
Joined: November 18th, 2010, 8:36 pm

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#599 Post by Corey N. » August 4th, 2014, 9:46 am

How much would it typically cost to transfer a case? $20/per seems exorbitant -- does that include delivery?
I'm with Corey on this. - Todd W.

Nøv¡¢k

User avatar
John Morris
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 18057
Joined: June 21st, 2009, 2:09 pm
Location: Gotham

Offsite Wine Storage Facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy

#600 Post by John Morris » August 4th, 2014, 10:16 am

Is that transfer from Manhattan? If so, what's the contractual basis for charging that, I wonder.
"But they told me there would be a hand basket."

"I'm not slurring my words. I'm speaking cursive."

Post Reply

Return to “Wine Talk”