Wine Care Storage as previously noted has filed in Chapter 11.  In Chapter 11, the debtor, Wine Care, can be relieved of its obligations - i.e. storage and insurance obligations to its customers.  However, Wine Care will not be discharged from its obligations if fraud can be show.  For example, if an owner of wine selected premium service and Wine Care failed to buy insurance in the amount requested, this could well be fraud.

Chapter 11 is a forum that is friendly to the debtor.  Wine Care Storage will have more leeway to attempt to avoid its rightful obligations to its customers.  This was an expected turn of events and demonstrates the fundamental bad faith of Derek Linbacher and Samanatha Carrington.

Once again insult has been added to injury.  Wine Care Storage has filed in bankruptcy.

The Supreme Court Judge in the Phillip Waterman had ordered that documents and inspection take place by the end of this month.  It is very curious that Derek Linbacher has not produced the insurance documents evidencing that the wines were insured and allowing inspection.  In addition, he was disposed.

This matter smells of fraud on numerous levels.  The wine care customers should be a force in the bankruptcy case.

A number of wine owners have written that they want to join the litigation against Wine Care Storage.  I have to remind affected Wine Owners that we have to accomplish a number of tasks before litigation is commenced:

1.  Select a lawyer

2.  Come up with a formula to pay the lawyer.

3.  Create a committee of owners to represent the interest of wine owners at large.  It is impractical to have to get the consent of each and every owner for every decision that will be taken in the context of any litigation.

We need to have a dialogue about these elements.

A number of Wine Care Storage clients have written me and asked how they could join the litigation.

Please note at the present time, I have not commenced litigation.  Mr. Phillip Waterman III has brought an action seeking information and inspection.

I would propose to the group that we retain litigation counsel to pursue our claims against Wine Care Storage.  While my wife is a litigation lawyer with her own practice, we are not comfortable representing a group of claimants.  We believe that the better way to proceed is to hire third party counsel.  By having a large group of claimants, we should be able to hold the costs down.

It seems to me that there are two distinct groups of claimants - those wine storage customers who purchased premium insurance and those who did not.  Otherwise, I believe that every one is in the same boat that is "under water".

If any one who has a suggestion for litigation counsel, please make a comment on this blog.  In my view the ideal counsel would be from a small firm who would be willing to do this on reasonable hourly rates and/ or on a capped basis.  In a future post, I will make some suggestions as to potential lawyers.

To add insult to injury, I received my monthly bill from Wine Care for storage.

You will pardon my language but this is really "brass balls" to charge for this incredible miscarriage of justice.  The wine has  most likely been ruined and they are charging us for the privilege of not being permitted to access the wine.

While Wine Care has sent out a number of emails concerning the status of their progress, I was shocked to learn at the hearing in Court that the Environmental Protection Agency ordered the facility closed.  I reviewed the emails and there is no mention of this fact.  A small omission or more likely an intentional misstatement.

There was a hearing in Supreme Court yesterday on Mr. Waterman's motion for "discovery" concerning various issues relating to Wine Care Storage.

The Judge granted all of Mr. Watermans requests:

1.  Mr. Waterman will be allowed to inspect the premises where the wine has been stored;

2.  Wine Care Storage is required to turn over to Mr. Waterman documentation related to the insurance of the customer's wines and other storm related documentation.  Note:  The Environmental Protection Agency required Wine Care Storage to vacate the space that it was occupying; and

3.  Counsel for Mr. Waterman may depose Wine Care Storage.

The foregoing is to take place within the next two to three weeks.

Counsel for Mr. Waterman has agreed to furnish copies to me of all of the documents that they receive. I will post these materials on the blog as soon as I receive it.

Wine care customers:

In preparation for the court hearing on January 16th, please share information with us:

1.  Number of bottles stored at Wincare

2.  Area of focus

3.  Estimated value

4.  Premium or regular customer

After the hearing I will share any information that we learn at the hearing on this blog

There is a court hearing at January 16th at 10:00 AM before Judge Edmead in NY County Supreme Court, 60 Center Street, NYC.

I will be attending this hearing with a number of other affected wine care storage customers.

Greetings to all wine lovers,

If you had your wine in storage Wine Care at their location on West 28th Street in NYC, we are trying to form a group of owners who have been affected by Hurricane Sandy.

The purpose of the group is to go after the company.  One wine owner, Philip Waterman III, has commenced an action against Wine Care.  My wife who is a lawyer is considering suing on my behalf. We believe that there are many other owners who are similarly affected by the evasive responses of Wine Care.  We believe that if we can act as a group that we will be more effective in achieving a favorable result.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Alan Ballinger