By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Back in late Oct. (ref. my post #1234), it seemed the only objection was to posting any attorney's name, phone number and or email address. However, it was deemed acceptable to ask for someone to contact you outside of the forum, via email directly or via email through the Edmunds profile. But today I noticed that now, you are not allowing anything of this sort. While I can see some reason behind not having an attorney's info about any suit on the forum, (could be construed as endorsing said attorney or could make Edmunds a party in action by Warranty Gold, etc.), I cannot understand why you would not allow one member to ask that if another member has such info, would they please send it via other means besides actually posting it on the forum.
From this change in your stance, it "appears" that Edmunds is doing everything it can to hinder it's member who have been victimized by Warranty Gold, and just want to share or obtain information.
What is the case number to be entered on the claim form?
Section 1: Goods Sold to be checked?
Thanks,
KG
http://www.nwig.com/030716%20-%20First%20report%20to%20creditors.- pdf
HTH
As far as this thing going to the courts - I don't have any faith right now because there is no Trustee assigned to the case. WG is handling everything by ITSELF.
We can file a motion to have a Trustee appointed, but I can't find a form online to do this. I called the local bankruptcy court and they said their online forms were for the debtor - that the creditors had to draw up their own.
The comments that all of the pre-June contracts have to be honored or refunded in order to reorganize is, I believe, incorrect. Under a Chapter 11, a debtor can unilaterally terminate certain classes of contracts. A debtor can also treat old creditors (we contract holders are considered unsecured creditors) as one class (for which there is a reduced recovery if any) and then continue to operate treating other customers (post-June 03) as if there were no bankruptcy. Frankly, there is every likelihood that the administrative and legal expenses of the Chapter 11 (including litigation costs with National Warranty) will consume much if not a substantial portion of the "estate" from which pre-June contract holders might be reimbursed for claims or paid pro-rata shares on their now terminated contracts.
File your claims on time. Consider whether we should band together to investigate the issue of whether WG committed fraud by selling contracts on promises and assurances of financial safety once it knew or should have known of financial problems with National Warranty. If those facts can be proven, WG and its officers may be denied bankruptcy relief on the grounds of fraud.
I agree with Posting #1445 that we should band together to have a trustee on this case.
http://www.warrantyweek.com/archive/ww20031201.html
This saga gets more disgusting every day. And to think, for a mere $221.00 more I could have gotten a Chrysler Service Contract that would have always been worth something.
The one thing I've learned from all the research I've done since NWIG's collapse is to either put money away for repairs, or spend more and go with a dealer/manufacturer-based contract. I will NEVER buy another internet-based service contract. I wish we could warn the world!
To bad it's all hindsight.
Thus, management adopted a strict enforcement policy in this discussion (the red message at the top), and the hosts are being careful to enfoirce these rules without stifling anyone's desire to communicate their feelings or ask questions. For those who do wish to cintact each other as far as information that we do not allow, we ask that you simply email the person using the email address in their profile - profiles are accessible by clicking the member's screen name in any of their posts.
As I have stated several times since this whole thing broke in June, we understand the frustrations of Warranty Gold customers who have come here to discuss the situation. However, we can't allow separate rules to apply because of that frustration. All Town Hall rules apply in all TH discussions, and this one is no exception. And as I stated in the beginning of this post, there were those who chose to challenge authority in such a way to become a detriment to Town Hall.
If any member has further questions regarding TH policy here or anywhere else, please don't hesitate to contact myself, Car_man, or Sylvia (Town Hall manager):
kcram@edmunds.com
car_man@edmunds.com
sylvia@edmunds.com
kcram
Host
Smart Shopper and FWI Message Boards
The bad thing is that they have enough assets to cover the refunds, but they're trying to get out of having to use them by rejecting our contracts. I still think our best bet is to file a written objection to the rejection order by December 8th. If enough people object, the court may order them to come up with a different plan (such as using their assets, that they acquired with OUR money, to pay us back!)
http://www.washtimes.com/autoweekend/20031119-115759-2808r.htm
I agree with both of the posters (below). If anyone knows how to do that please proceed.
Had the insurance "industry rating" (independently checked by me) on Warranty Gold not been A- or higher when I bought my policy I wouldn't even have thought about going with Warranty Gold. Had Warranty Gold not had a flawless Better Business resolution record I would also have said "ix nay."
Sometimes, despite our best "due diligence" we get screwed. I feel I got "taken" by Warranty Gold but you know it happens and there are bigger things in life to "worry about."
Like you all I am aggressively pursuing as much of a refund as I can get. Because of unexpected changes in my car's usage I was still covered by original factory warranty when I got that surprise Warranty Gold "sorry buddy" e-mail! Talk about feeling really screwed and stupid!
Tim
#1446 of 1449 Lost trust now by yespads Dec 02, 2003 (7:43 pm)
After looking at the many postings here, finally I lost the hope to see some money back from WG.
I agree with Posting #1445 that we should band together to have a trustee on this case.
WG states "..Global Payment Systems has accumulated over $650,000 in funds rightfully belonging to the Debtor."
I love that part "...RIGHTFULLY BELONGING TO THE DEBTOR".
WG is saying Global Payment Systems violated the Automatic Stay - meaning creditors(etc...) can't begin/pursue lawsuits, collection calls, repossesiions, garnishments or levies.
I have WG's motion for an expedited hearing. plz email me if anyone wants it.
Thanks
robphelan - The courts, if they decide this money does belong to WG, ought to seize that and have a third party begin paying claims and issuing refunds on a first-in, first-out basis.
If you don't object now, you'll deserve "what you WON'T have coming to you!" As I've stated before, I think bankruptcy is the answer, but I don't think allowing WG to reject our contracts is the best "plan" to get a refund. From everything I've read, if WG is successful in rejecting our contracts, they will be ahead of the game, and we'll get zero, nadda, nothing!
Think about it: you see what sitting back relying on WG to do the right thing has gotten us so far. Surely we're not naive enough to allow them to steer US through THEIR bankruptcy. I honestly believe if we can't mount a credible objection to WG rejecting our contracts, we will get absolutely nothing...ZERO. We must force WG to use the assets we funded for them to pay us back...or to go out of business trying!
Folks, if you don't send in written objections by December 8th, which basically means within the next 48 hours, you'll have no one to blame but yourself for getting a zero refund or a "claim terminally denied" notice, or both.
=================================================================- - - - - ========================================
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
IN RE: §
§
WARRANTY GOLD, LTD., § CASE NO. 03-15721
§ CHAPTER 11
DEBTOR § JUDGE FRANK MONROE
ORDER GRANTING WARRANTY GOLD’S FIRST DAY MOTION TO REJECT ALL
PRE-JUNE 7, 2003 CUSTOMER EXTENDED WARRANTY CONTRACTS AND TO
MODIFY AND EXTEND RESPONSE DEADLINE
On November 12, 2003, the Court considered the First Day Motion To Reject All Pre-
June 7, 2003 Customer Extended Warranty Contracts And To Modify And Extend Response
Deadline (“Motion”) filed by Warranty Gold, Ltd. (the "Debtor"), the Debtor-In-Possession in
this Case.
The Court finds that the modified response deadlines set forth below must be used to
provide adequate notice of the Motion and this Order as there are approximately 67,000 of these
contracts.
The Court finds that rejection of the Debtor’s Pre-June 7, 2003 Customer Extended
Warranty Contracts (“Pre-June 7 Contracts”) is warranted under the circumstances in that the
IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
below described is SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 19, 2003
________________________________________
FRANK R. MONROE
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
____________________________________________________________
2
Debtor has determined, through the exercise of its best business judgment, that the Pre-June 7
Contracts are not necessary to the Debtor’s current operations, that the assumption of the Pre-
June 7 Contracts is an economic impossibility in that the Debtor cannot cure the past defaults and
cannot provide adequate assurance of future performance, and that the assumption of the Pre-
June 7 Contracts do not enhance the prospects for a successful reorganization of the Debtor.
Therefore, rejection of the Pre-June 7 Contracts is appropriate and in the best interests of the
Debtor, its estate and the creditors.
THEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Motion effective November 12, 2003.
The Pre-June 7 Contracts are immediately rejected under Bankruptcy Code § 365(a).
However, to protect the due process rights of the customers under the Pre-June Contracts,
the Court expands the finality period under Bankruptcy Rule 8001 from ten days to twenty- five
days to allow such customers to review and respond to this Order approving the rejection of the
Pre-June 7 Contracts. Further, the Court modifies the filing requirements in Rule 8001 to allow a
response filed to this Motion to act as a motion for new trial if filed within the 25-day period,
such that a response will generate a hearing on the Motion. This extension is intended to
correlate to the 20-negative notice provisions in the Local Rules of the Western District of Texas,
while allowing the rejection to be effective immediately.
The Court orders the Debtor to notify all customers under the Pre-June 7 Contracts by
verified email addresses of the entry of the order approving the rejection of such Contracts. The
Debtor is instructed to notify these holders at the email addresses held by the Debtor of the order
approving rejection and, in the email, set forth the method by which the holder may respond. As
to the remaining holders whose email address cannot be verified, the Debtor is instructed to
contact such holders using first class mail. The notice to the customers must be in a form similar
3
to the form attached as Exhibit 1. Notification must be sent out by Friday, November 14, 2003.
Notification may accompany the notification of the debtor’s first meeting of creditors.
The Court further orders that any party objecting to this Order must send a written
objection on or before December 8, 2003 to Debtor’s counsel at:
Lynn Hamilton Butler
Porter Rogers Dahlman & Gordon
P. O. Box 2227
Austin, TX 78746
(512) 505-5900
Fax (512) 472-7316
reorganization@warrantygold.com
Objections to this Order are not to be filed with the Court.
The Court further orders that a status hearing on responses filed with counsel will be held
on December 23, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. at the Homer Thornberry Judicial Building, 903 San Jacinto,
Bankruptcy Courtroom No. 1, Austin, Texas 78701. It will not be necessary for objecting or
responding parties to be at the December 23, 2003 status conference as no rights will be
determined at this time. The only issues to be decided will be the procedure by which such
objections or responses can be scheduled for hearing and the time for filing claims resulting from
rejection of the Pre-June 7 Contracts.
###
Order submitted,
PORTER ROGERS DAHLMAN
& GORDON
By: /s/ Lynn Hamilton Butler
Lynn Hamilton Butler
Texas State Bar No. 03527350
2600 Via Fortuna, Suite 130
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 505-5900
Fax: (512) 472-7316
lbutler@prdg.com
ATTORNEY FOR WARRANTY GOLD, LTD.
4
EXHIBIT 1
FORM OF NOTICE REGARDING REJECTION ORDER
NOTE TO ALL HOLDERS OF CONTRACTS SOLD PRIOR TO JUNE 7, 2003:
ON NOVEMBER 12, 2003, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ENTERED AN ORDER AT
THE DEBTOR’S REQUEST REJECTING ALL EXTENDED WARRANTY
CONTRACTS SOLD BY WARRANTY GOLD PRIOR TO JUNE 7, 2003. IF YOU WISH
TO REQUEST A COPY OF THIS ORDER, YOU MAY DO SO BY EMAILING
REORGANIZATION@WARRANTYGOLD.COM. TO FILE AN OBJECTION TO THIS
ORDER, YOU MUST FILE THE OBJECTION IN WRITING WITH THE ATTORNEY
FOR THE DEBTOR LISTED ABOVE BY DECEMBER 8, 2002. DO NOT FILE THE
OBJECTION WITH THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. A STATUS HEARING ON
RESPONSES/OBJECTIONS TO THIS ORDER WILL BE HELD ON DECEMBER 23,
2003 AT 1:30 P.M. IN BANKRUPTCY COURTROOM #1, HOMER THORNBERRY
JUDICIAL BUILDING, 903 SAN JACINTO, AUSTIN, TEXAS
********************
It has been over two and a half long months since I wrote to you about obtaining a refund and got an initial reply from Ashley Taylor, Customer Service Manager. This delay is inexcusable. I demand immediate payment of the portion of my contract which I paid, $849.00. You continue to take in revenue, as you are still selling contracts. Therefore, some of those funds can be used to pay my refund. I choose Warranty Gold because I thought you would stand behind your contract, no matter what. But since this whole debacle broke loose, you have done nothing but pass the buck and point fingers. You are now trying to remove the burden of these unpaid claims and refunds by filing Chapter 11. Funny, when this started, you tried to say that Warranty Gold was not the responsible party for these debts. If that were true, why would you then file Chapter 11 over these same exact debts? I cancelled fairly early on in this process, July 17, 2003, long before you got the Bankruptcy Court involved, and therefore, I am entitled to my refund.
**********************
The reason I post it here, is to draw particular attention to the point I made about at first they tried to say it wasn't their responsibility, but NWIG's. Well if that were true, why the heck are they filing bankruptcy over it. Obviously because they are responsible. Further, if they really wanted to demonstrate good faith and try to prove that they are reputable, then they ought to take care of the customers who got caught up in the whole NWIG fiasco. Look, I am not against them staying in business. Just take a percentage of your monthly profits and use them to start paying peoples claims and refunds, on a first-in, first-out basis. At least if they did that, and told everyone they intended to pay all legitimate claims and refunds, people wouldn't mind as much if it took several months or more to get to them.
http://www.warrantygold.com/lycos/wg_fs.asp?URL=quoteform.asp
Here's a link for those of us who have either sought or gotten credit card charge backs. WG is going after the company to get back $657,023.79 of our money that it says belongs to them. They also want $2000.00 for attorney fees. What a charade!
http://www.warrantynews.com/docs/pleadings/12-1-03%20mtn%20for%20- contempt%20and%20tro.pdf
I would almost bet they waited until the last minute to post these proccedings so that people can't complain that they didn't get a copy of the order cancelling our contracts (the order that's up for objection). Slick.
It seems they are not willing to do anything without being spurred to do so.
Dave
WG has posted a motion filed by the Tx AG office to exempt Texas customers from the First Day Rejection Order.
"The Debtor agreed that it would effectively withdraw its request for rejection of any contracts sodl to Texas residents (without prjudice to filing any future request for such treatment)... As such, the Debtor ad the State file this joint request to amend and supplement the First Day Rejection Order to cover all contracts with consumers and customers, sace and except thosesold to Texas residents."
here's the link
http://www.warrantynews.com/docs/pleadings/12-1-03%20agreed%20mtn- %20to%20amend%20order%20rejecting.pdf
This could be the start of seothing good - at least for some of us... Send this motion to your Attorney General for review to see if they can do anything similar.
http://www.license.state.tx.us/warrantygold.htm
I hope this happens and I hope a lot more states follow suit. If WG will not take care of their customers, then they should get the shaft!!!!!!
I can't believe the nerve of WG to sue the credit processing company for giving customers that WG screwed, 'chargebacks'!!!!!
WG is no better than the typical SCAMMER who makes absolutley false promises to mislead consumers but instead of pulling up stakes and starting in a new town once the scam is blown, WG gets to hide behind the Internet and the Laws of bankruptcy allowing them to continue their scam.
If we could get California, New York, and Florida to follow suit, I think that would put the big dent in there revenues.
Global is also holding funds received from new contracts and not releasing to their merchant account. So this figure indicates the magnitude of new contracts they have sold, and Global has not released to their merchant account due to the controversy and mass publication of WG's fraudulent business practices.
What goes around, comes around!
http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/4492D797DC0BD92F85256CB80055F- B97/60FD9BD8FA71A5B185256CD1005EE5C5?OpenDocument
http://www.fldfs.com/PressOffice/ViewMediaRelease.htm?ID=449
"I purchased an extended warranty/vehicle service contract from Warranty Gold on Aug 31, 2002. I now have reason to believe it was not licensed to do business in Florida at that time. If they weren't, is there anything you can do about it at this point?
After filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Warranty Gold obtained an order allowing it to "reject" or cancel my contract. I have filed an objection to that order with the US Bankruptcy Court in Austin, Texas. I've also filed a claim with the court.
The Texas Dept of Insurance is aggressively pursiung Warranty Gold. What can/is the Florida DFS Insurance Division doing on behalf of me and other Floridians involved in this fiasco? Are you working with your Texas counterparts? Is there a particular strategy you are deploying to help us in Florida? What can I do to further protect myself and get help from your office?
I read in your Nov 25, 2003 media release that you ordered Warranty Gold to notify all Florida policyholders that you ordered it to cease operations in Florida. For your information, Warranty Gold has not notified me."
Here's the link to the Florida site. Click on the "My Service Request" tab in the top right corner to proceed: http://servicepoint.fldfs.com/eService_enu/start.swe?SWECmd=Start
If they are the right ones, it will be yet another state to file a complaint to.
NJ Division of Banking and Insurance
http://www.state.nj.us/dobi/complain.pdf
NJ Attorney General
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/ca/ocp/ocpform.htm
I'm happy for the Texas contract holders, but I also wonder how detrimental this might eventually be to the rest of us. I firmly believe that if this motion is accepted, the Texas Attorney General and the Texas Dept of Licensing may eventually strong arm WG into reinstating/honoring/assuming the Texas contracts in return for WG keeping its Texas license.
I think that would be great for the Texas contract holders, and it would be great to finally see some justice done in this crazy fiasco. And I can only hope the Florida Attorney General will eventually step up to the plate for us Floridians. HOWEVER, as I know WG, they will not assume/honor the Texas contracts without a reduction in assets, which means less money in the big kitty to pay claims and refunds to the rest of us.
Consequently, I am seriously considering writing a "conditional objection" to this motion. I say "conditional" because I would only object to WG honoring the Texas contracts if it reduces the assets available to the rest of us by so much as one penny. If WG does not reject the Texas contracts and then eventually honors them for free, my objection would be withdrawn.
What does the "rest of the world" think about this? I love Texas, and I wish everyone involved in this mess the best of luck, but I want my !@#$%^&! money back too!!! I want a full refund, not a refund minus what it costs to honor only the Texas contracts.
Check out "reply from Lynn Butler, attorney for WG" on 5 Dec 03 at Rob Phelan's web site for more insight into this.
About June/July 2002, I bought a Platinum 7/100 warranty for my 2001 vehicle. The warranty cost $999.00. I purchased this on a Visa card. (Evidently it was important too that the amount was < $1000 , I don’t know why but that’s what my wife says)
The thing that makes this so cool is that I closed that credit card 6 months after I used it; so I disputed a charge to an inactive account.
Even though I had canceled the card and this happened over a year ago I received about $850 back from the CC Company (they pro-rated the $999). I will have a check in my hot little hands by the end of next week. It may be important to note that I opened my dispute in Oct; before WG floated to the top of the bowl.
I really can’t say enough about how well Visa has protected me. I am a huge believer in CCs, I have only disputed about 4-5 things in my life but it’s a life saver when you need it.
Don’t give up hope.
Even manufacturers policies lose money on average.
NWIC outside auditors estimated that they would have to sell [have assigned to them] 12,500 NEW Policies every month as their claims plus overhead exceeded $12,500,000 per month [based on $1,000 per policy placed into escrow]. Many of the marketing companies [like WG and the 7 other members of the risk rentention group] escrowed much less than $1,000 per policy!!!!!!!!!
Whenever your liabilties exceed your reserves by 3 times you miscalculated the pay out rate.
Extended service contracts need to be priced at $3,000-$5,000 [5-8 cents per mile covered] to meet customer expectations that most things would be covered ----- plus to cover the costs of administration.
Dealers [independent marketers] who sold these policies didn't have adequate legal advice since the contracts spells out that the seller has primary responsibility in the event of failure by the retention group or if the group runs out of reserves [which the seller decided the amount to be reserved].
NWIC warned the sellers last year that they were not transferring enough reserves and that they should raise the prices of policies sold to cover the cost of claims.
I would verify through the new administrator that they will pay if WG folds - as it looks like they will.
And get it in writing or threaten to cancel.
http://www.oag.state.md.us/Forms/gen.pdf
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the AG is threatening to pull the WG license to sell contracts in Texas. Considering that Texas is the largest market for SUVs and trucks for GM, Ford and Chrysler, this is no small threat to WG's ability to come out of bankruptcy court with the likelyhood of staying profitable. If they can't sell contracts in Texas, they loose a huge potential market. It's my understanding that they also can't sell in California because of specific language in their laws, not because of their bankruptcy proceedings. If they loose two of the most populous states in the country, WG has bigger problems. It sounds like the lawyers are huddled in a room somewhere in Austin, with the conversation going something like this: "OK, you honor the XX,000 contracts in effect in Texas right now until they run out, and we will let you sell new contracts starting tomorrow to the XX,000,000 people in Texas."
If the Texas AG is sucessful, there will be a posting on their Web site or the WG propoganda Web site about it, with the heading of a decree or a court order. I hope this works, because I currently hold three of these worthless contracts.
Joe
What's to say I cancel now with the temp credit already issued and no outstanding balance, they'll have no way to reinstate the charge if the account doesn't exist anymore....hmmmmmmmm! Any lawyers out there who can chime in on this thought??
Ray T.
to do business with in the first place. They may be protected by Chapter 11 bankruptcy but since the comments posted at http://www.fldfs.com/PressOffice/ViewMediaRelease.htm?ID=449 verify my concerns, I will file an ammended claim with the bankruptcy court for the full amount of the contract. I hope the Florida Attorney Generals office would agree with me. I also believe it is Warranty Golds intent to fight the chargeback due to Chapter 11 protection. They have stated numerous times that NWIG is the responsible party and customers should address inquiries to them. If that were the case, WG would not need to file for bankruptcy protection. While the prospect of a full refund is slim to none, I do hope the Fl. dept. of Fin. Services will enforce a ban upon WG to cease all business with State of Florida residents.
As for chargebacks/WG disputing them -
Be careful and stay on top of your credit card company - they failed to send me the WG response/dispute. Luckily I had called my CC company a week before the case was closed and was was shocked to be given THREE days to get my REPLY back to my credit card company despite it being their fault I never responded (they never told me OR even updated my account removing the Temp credits - just fell thru the cracks and I got an apology. Thanks. Here I thought WG didn't fight me!). It's not enough fighting with WG. I'll be soon fighting/cancelling my CC if they do not honor my entire dispute.
And WG has the audacity to:
A) claim my contract is in force and valid (despite PUBLIC records?!)
I can't wait till this mess is over. I hope I will not lose most of my money to these crooks on my 3 month old contract. Does the fair credit billing act of a limited X amount of days for a chargeback apply when a company blatantly swindles lies and cheats customers?
Feel free to email me for the link.
Also, there is a new doc on warrantynews.com/pleadings.asp that shows WG going after the cc companied and Global Payments - the biggest issue is that cc customers didn't file a timely complaint.
The cc companies have asked Global Payment to put WG on a "match list" which blacklists them from ANY credit card transactions.