Euro Pacific bank is a scam

[DJohnson]

And any OPT-IN who is not in this chat is completely ignorant of Qenta’s termination terms.

Qenta’s termination letter should have triggered a cautionary stop (or a “pause”, if not a “reset”) in the process. The logical next step would have been to cancel the claim deadline, recover 100% of the assets, turning all customers into OPT-OUTs and asking everyone for their claims. The fact that it hasn’t worries me and signals the moment to act before it’s too late.

 

[Pschiff]

All of that makes sense to me and I appreciate that you are taking care of it, but I still think that the OPT-INs must act, and as a minimum a complaint must be filed. The Receiver left us, OPT-INs, in the hands of Qenta while focusing just in the OPT-OUTs, proven by the fact that the he is communicating just to random OPT-IN customers and that regular general updates on the liquidation website are overdue. OPT-OUTs have a DEADLINE to file their claims but nothing has been yet said to us in that respect, and that is worrying after Qenta’s termination letter to the Receiver,

Correct. To put the receiver in the best possible light, he never really read the Purchase and Assumption Agreement, and did not realize that all the assets transferred to Qenta remained the property of the bank. He further assumed that the bank's liability to the customers also transferred to Qenta. It did not. That liability was only going to transfer to Qenta when the Agreement closed, which it never did. I have already reminded the receiver of the obligation he clearly had no idea he had. So far all I've gotten from him was an email from his lawyer threatening me and demand that I stop sending him emails. I think Opt-ins should also remind him, either individually or through a lawyer, that there is no difference between Opt-in and Opt-out customers, especially now since the Purchase and Assumption Agreement which would have transferred the Opt-in Assets and liabilities to Qenta has been cancelled. The only difference is that the Opt-out customers only hold cash. The opt-in customers own a combination of cash, gold and silver, and mutual funds. The receiver has the same fiduciary duty to all customers and he has the responsibility to safeguard all of the bank's assets, especially those that where transferred to Qenta and remain in Qenta's custody. Qenta holds about $80 million of the bank's assets, while the receiver reports holding about $48 million.

 

[Andrew Cobb]

I have emailed Qenta, OCFI and the Receiver letting them know in no uncertain terms, that Qenta's purchase agreement termination MUST NOT be accepted. I instructed OCFI and the Receiver to demand the return of all Opt-In Customer assets from Qenta immediately and only return the $500K Qenta paid and nothing more. I think all Opt-In customers should at minimum email OCFI and the Receiver demanding this. If I do not receive a response by COB Monday next week, I will submit a formal complaint, as this seems to be the only way to get OCFI or the Receiver to respond to any of my emails.

 

[Pschiff]

All of that makes sense to me and I appreciate that you are taking care of it, but I still think that the OPT-INs must act, and as a minimum a complaint must be filed. The Receiver left us, OPT-INs, in the hands of Qenta while focusing just in the OPT-OUTs, proven by the fact that the he is communicating just to random OPT-IN customers and that regular general updates on the liquidation website are overdue. OPT-OUTs have a DEADLINE to file their claims but nothing has been yet said to us in that respect, and that is worrying after Qenta’s termination letter to the Receiver,

Correct. To put the receiver in the best possible light, he never really read the Purchase and Assumption Agreement, and did not realize that all the assets transferred to Qenta remained the property of the bank. He further assumed that the bank's liability to the customers also transferred to Qenta. It did not. That liability was only going to transfer to Qenta when the Agreement closed, which it never did. I have already reminded the receiver of the obligation he clearly had no idea he had. So far all I've gotten from him was an email from his lawyer threatening me and demand that I stop sending him emails. I think Opt-ins should also remind him, either individually or through a lawyer, that there is no difference between Opt-in and Opt-out customers, especially now since the Purchase and Assumption Agreement which would have transferred the Opt-in Assets and liabilities to Qenta has been cancelled. The only difference is that the Opt-out customers only hold cash. The opt-in customers own a combination of cash, gold and silver, and mutual funds. The receiver has the same fiduciary duty to all customers and he has the responsibility to safeguard all of the bank's assets, especially those that where transferred to Qenta and remain in Qenta's custody. Qenta holds about $80 million of the bank's assets, while the receiver reports holding about $48 million.

I have emailed Qenta, OCFI and the Receiver letting them know in no uncertain terms, that Qenta's purchase agreement termination MUST NOT be accepted. I instructed OCFI and the Receiver to demand the return of all Opt-In Customer assets from Qenta immediately and only return the $500K Qenta paid and nothing more. I think all Opt-In customers should at minimum email OCFI and the Receiver demanding this. If I do not receive a response by COB Monday next week, I will submit a formal complaint, as this seems to be the only way to get OCFI or the Receiver to respond to any of my emails.

You should revise that. The termination should be accepted. It's the terms that should be rejected. Since the Agreement was terminated, Qenta has no choice but to unconditionally return 100% of the asset transferred into its custody. The receiver must be instructed not to accept anything less, and to use the legal means at his disposal to secure the full recovery of those assets. Even if Qenta is correct that the bank owes it money for its losses related to the delay, which I don't think it does, Qenta needs to file that claim in NYC arbitration. But even if it wins, any judgement would be junior to the bank's customers. Qenta can't cut the line to get ahead of senior creditors.

 

[Andrew Cobb]

You should revise that. The termination should be accepted. It's the terms that should be rejected.

Poor wording on my part. The email I sent to OCFI and the Receiver is clear that its Qenta's terms that should be rejected, not the termination

 

[EPB Customer]

Hi all (and specifically customers with PM Accounts),

As part of a dossier I’ll be sending on to the Receiver imminently (in support of our claims to the full and in‑kind return of our PM holdings from Qenta), I’m trying to clarify whether a specific gold/silver T&C or contract existed – does anyone recall signing one, and have a copy? Please let me know asap – any details would be hugely helpful.

 

[Pschiff]

All of that makes sense to me and I appreciate that you are taking care of it, but I still think that the OPT-INs must act, and as a minimum a complaint must be filed. The Receiver left us, OPT-INs, in the hands of Qenta while focusing just in the OPT-OUTs, proven by the fact that the he is communicating just to random OPT-IN customers and that regular general updates on the liquidation website are overdue. OPT-OUTs have a DEADLINE to file their claims but nothing has been yet said to us in that respect, and that is worrying after Qenta’s termination letter to the Receiver,

Correct. To put the receiver in the best possible light, he never really read the Purchase and Assumption Agreement, and did not realize that all the assets transferred to Qenta remained the property of the bank. He further assumed that the bank's liability to the customers also transferred to Qenta. It did not. That liability was only going to transfer to Qenta when the Agreement closed, which it never did. I have already reminded the receiver of the obligation he clearly had no idea he had. So far all I've gotten from him was an email from his lawyer threatening me and demand that I stop sending him emails. I think Opt-ins should also remind him, either individually or through a lawyer, that there is no difference between Opt-in and Opt-out customers, especially now since the Purchase and Assumption Agreement which would have transferred the Opt-in Assets and liabilities to Qenta has been cancelled. The only difference is that the Opt-out customers only hold cash. The opt-in customers own a combination of cash, gold and silver, and mutual funds. The receiver has the same fiduciary duty to all customers and he has the responsibility to safeguard all of the bank's assets, especially those that where transferred to Qenta and remain in Qenta's custody. Qenta holds about $80 million of the bank's assets, while the receiver reports holding about $48 million.

I have emailed Qenta, OCFI and the Receiver letting them know in no uncertain terms, that Qenta's purchase agreement termination MUST NOT be accepted. I instructed OCFI and the Receiver to demand the return of all Opt-In Customer assets from Qenta immediately and only return the $500K Qenta paid and nothing more. I think all Opt-In customers should at minimum email OCFI and the Receiver demanding this. If I do not receive a response by COB Monday next week, I will submit a formal complaint, as this seems to be the only way to get OCFI or the Receiver to respond to any of my emails.

You should revise that. The termination should be accepted. It's the terms that should be rejected. Since the Agreement was terminated, Qenta has no choice but to unconditionally return 100% of the asset transferred into its custody. The receiver must be instructed not to accept anything less, and to use the legal means at his disposal to secure the full recovery of those assets. Even if Qenta is correct that the bank owes it money for its losses related to the delay, which I don't think it does, Qenta needs to file that claim in NYC arbitration. But even if it wins, any judgement would be junior to the bank's customers. Qenta can't cut the line to get ahead of senior creditors.

Hi all (and specifically customers with PM Accounts),

As part of a dossier I’ll be sending on to the Receiver imminently (in support of our claims to the full and in‑kind return of our PM holdings from Qenta), I’m trying to clarify whether a specific gold/silver T&C or contract existed – does anyone recall signing one, and have a copy? Please let me know asap – any details would be hugely helpful.

Here is what I was able to determine. The physical silver bullion is still in a vault at Silver Bullion in Singapore. So all that needs to happen is for Silver Bullion to reassign that silver back to the bank. The gold that was at Silver Bullion was transferred to Switzerland, after control was assigned to Qenta. Qenta than swapped that physical gold for "paper gold," which is basically a contract with a bullion bank for a set quantity of gold. So Qenta needs to assign that contract to the bank. Then the receiver can close it out, realize the full appreciation, not the value as of Sept 2022. The way I figure it all the Opt-in customer balances would equal the values received from selling all the gold and silver now at today's prices. The Opt-out customers are all in cash. I don't have the exact numbers. But if all customers are owed $123 million, and the bank has $125 million, that all customers are made whole, including Opt-in customer's gains, and there is $2 million left over for me. If customers are owed $130 million, than all customers would get back 96 cents on the dollar (For Opt-in that's 96 cents based on the appreciated value of their metals) and there would be nothing left over for me.

 

[DJohnson]

I have emailed Qenta, OCFI and the Receiver letting them know in no uncertain terms, that Qenta's purchase agreement termination MUST NOT be accepted. I instructed OCFI and the Receiver to demand the return of all Opt-In Customer assets from Qenta immediately and only return the $500K Qenta paid and nothing more. I think all Opt-In customers should at minimum email OCFI and the Receiver demanding this. If I do not receive a response by COB Monday next week, I will submit a formal complaint, as this seems to be the only way to get OCFI or the Receiver to respond to any of my emails.

Andrew,
That is exactly the first step we need to take, leaving room for escalation. If the Receiver starts receiving claims and letter like yours from the OPT-INs, he will know we are making him responsible, and it is more likely that he stops Qenta.

If you shared the letter we could use it, if not directly, as a template for ours. That will not only save us time (of the essence, now) but will tell the Receiver we are coordinating efforts and are aiming for further action. Thanks!

 

[seize]

Andrew,
That is exactly the first step we need to take, leaving room for escalation. If the Receiver starts receiving claims and letter like yours from the OPT-INs, he will know we are making him responsible, and it is more likely that he stops Qenta.

If you shared the letter we could use it, if not directly, as a template for ours. That will not only save us time (of the essence, now) but will tell the Receiver we are coordinating efforts and are aiming for further action. Thanks!

Yes could you provide the letter, and the e-mail address ?

 

[Pschiff]

Legally the receiver has no right to give away any of the bank's assets to Qenta. At best, Qenta would become an unsecured creditor of the bank, but only if it prevails in an arbitration (doubtful) which it has not even filed. But if Qenta prevailed in that arbitration, and was awarded costs for its losses attributed to the bank's breach, that judgement would be junior to the bank's customers. The receiver can't cut a deal with Qenta that prioritize their unsubstantiated claim to the senior, proven claims of the bank's customers. So it would not just be a breach of fiduciary duty, but of bankruptcy law. So hopefully the receiver will not agree, but I'm sure customers efforts to point this out will help, especially given the receiver's past comments disclaiming any responsibility over the assets transferred to Qenta. What he also must do now is force Qenta to unconditionally return those assets to his control, on behalf of the bank.

 

[Pypenator]

No, they received gold and silver bullion. That is what they need to return. Had gold and silver went down, they would not return the dollar value when received, and eat the loss. If Qenta where to keep the appreciation for itself, the trustee would need to file an arbitration in NY against Qenta for unjust enrichment, and reclaim that gain for the bank's customers. If he won't I have standing to do it myself, as I signed the purchase and assumption agreement. But since Qenta wrote they will return assets "as originally received" that clearly implies they will return gold and silver bullion, as that is how they originally received the assets.

If Qenta still have the gold and silver, why can't it be transferred to a reputable company like the Perth Mint or Gold money and these companies will add you as a new client?

 

[Pschiff]

If Qenta still have the gold and silver, why can't it be transferred to a reputable company like the Perth Mint or Gold money and these companies will add you as a new client?

I actually have a much better company in mind. That would be my preference, as none of the gold and silver would need to be sold. But it's up to the receiver. I will suggest that to him through the channels at my disposal since he will not talk directly to me. It seems like that's a good alternative to Qenta, as that would accomplish the same goal.

 

[Radko]

I actually have a much better company in mind. That would be my preference, as none of the gold and silver would need to be sold. But it's up to the receiver. I will suggest that to him through the channels at my disposal since he will not talk directly to me. It seems like that's a good alternative to Qenta, as that would accomplish the same goal.

What about the Mutual Funds, aren't those Euro Pacific Asset Management Funds? Can those to be transferred to your other company?

 

[Pschiff]

No, they are with IB, but were never associated with my U.S. based RIA. They actually need to be closed down, the assets need to be sold, and the proceeds given to the bank to be distributed to customers who where the beneficial owners. They are currently owned by one of the bank's subsidiaries that was transferred to Qenta pending a sale that never closed, and has since been terminated by Qenta.

What about the Mutual Funds, aren't those Euro Pacific Asset Management Funds? Can those to be transferred to your other compa

 

[Pypenator]

I have sent him at least a dozen emails explaining this. I sent so many as I keep learning new information. He has not replied to a single one.. But he is on notice that Qenta's claim is bogus, that the gold and silver are absolutely the bank's assets that he is managing, as are the liabilities to pay the identical quantity of gold and silver to the bank's customers, and that if he chooses to give those assets to Qenta, that he will be liable for that loss.

Can't you on behalf of the clients get a court interdict to prevent the Receiver from allowing Qenta to sell the assets?

 

[Pypenator]

As an opt-in customer, should I submit the opt-out forms now to comply with the deadline, or should I wait for a message from the receiver?
Since the majority of my assets were in precious metals, I don't even know what amount I should claim, etc.
What are you guys doing?

I only wrote my gold ounce amount, I was only shooting a shot in the dark.

 

[premierexpat]

And any OPT-IN who is not in this chat is completely ignorant of Qenta’s termination terms. Qenta’s termination letter should have triggered a cautionary stop (or a “pause”, if not a “reset”) in the process. The logical next step would have been to cancel the claim deadline, recover 100% of the assets, turning all customers into OPT-OUTs and asking everyone for their claims. The fact that it hasn’t worries me and signals the moment to act before it’s too late.

I wouldnt be surprised of old Wigburto has a side deal with Qenta for them to split the profits between themselves.

If he agrees what could be done then considering hes the liquidator? He could technically agree to Qentas terms to let them take the profits then it will be a whole s**t show trying to get the profits back.

I dont have any of the assets only cash but the way this is looking it looks like it could go bad any minute considering Puerto Rico is a tin pot banana republic at best.

 

[Pschiff]

I wouldnt be surprised of old Wigburto has a side deal with Qenta for them to split the profits between themselves.

If he agrees what could be done then considering hes the liquidator? He could technically agree to Qentas terms to let them take the profits then it will be a whole s**t show trying to get the profits back.

I dont have any of the assets only cash but the way this is looking it looks like it could go bad any minute considering Puerto Rico is a tin pot banana republic at best.

I filed for a TRO in federal court in PR to restrain the receiver from making a deal with Qenta to give away any of the bank's assets. The judge actually denied it. I filed a motion for reconsideration. Still waiting for a ruling on that. Should know by Monday. Crazy that the judge would not even order the receiver to follow a law that he should follow anyway. I still have heard nothing from the receiver one way or the other as to what he intends to do.