"...document 53 was filed on 5/31/07... that is why it was missed. Didn't go back far enough."
After all the detailed "analysis" in a long post made yesterday and which was suddenly DELETED this morning, it seems rrm didn't "go back far enough". I quoted part of the deleted post in a reply to you -
Message 23842577
Posted by: rrm_bcnu
In reply to: bearclaw51 who wrote msg# 31834 Date:8/30/2007 10:59:39 PM
Post #of 31859
Roger that.
My first PACER update was on 6/28/07 document 64 ... document 53 was filed on 5/31/07... that is why it was missed. Didn't go back far enough. Regardless, this budget is one we've been asking to look at for months.
siliconinvestor.com
The DELETED post -"Message 22478329 is deleted" -
Posted by: rrm_bcnu
In reply to: None Date:8/30/2007 12:32:22 AM
Post #of 31833
Some observations regarding the payroll issue:
A. In document 122 filed on 7/20/07 (PRO PLAS LLC’S RESPONSE TO THE APPLICATION OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING THE EMPLOYMENT OF WISE DELCOTTO PLLC AS ATTORNEYS FOR THE COMMITTEE AND PRO PLAS LLC’S OBJECTION TO THE APPLICATION OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF RETAINER) Pro Plas stated the following on page 2
5. According to the Pro Mold, Inc. Disbursement Journals that are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “1”, “2” and “3”, Debtor Pro Mold has transferred the following amounts to Debtor Plasticon since June 22, 2007 for management fees:
Date - Amount
a. June 22, 2007 - $ 7,500.00
b. June 29, 2007 - $ 7,500.00
b. July 6, 2007 - $ 7,500.00
c. July 10, 2007 - $ 7,500.00
Total $30,000.00
6. According to counsel for Debtor Pro Mold and Debtor Plasticon, Debtor Plasticon directed Debtor Pro Mold to pay these management fees to Debtor Plasticon “out of necessity because Debtor Plasticon had no money to pay its’ payroll.”
B. Implicit in the above is the quoted statement that Plasticon had no money to pay Pro Mold's payroll. All payroll for the corporation, including Pro Mold, is apparently handled through ADP Inc., according to the DIP Monthly Operations report for the period ending 31 July 2007 (#158). Note the dates of the above cited "proof" that the Murphy entities "management fees" were unauthorized post-petition transfers.
C. It appears that the payroll for ProMold amounts to approximately $7500 of the total Plasticon payroll handled by ADP, approximately $9447 per week. This is based on the summed and averaged entries below from document #158 pages 13 and 14:
Date | Amounts Disbursed
5/25/07 | $6038.97 + $3335.94 + $56.07 = $9430.98
5/31/07 | $6038.98 + $3335.92 + $56.07 = $9430.97
6/08/07 | $6038.99 + $3335.92 + $56.07 = $9430.98
6/15/07 | $6038.99 + $3335.92 + $56.07 = $9430.98
6/21/07 | $6038.98 + $3335.92 + $56.07 = $9430.97
6/27/07 | $6038.98 + $3335.92 + $56.07 = $9430.97 (5 days after the June 22 Pro Mold Transfer)
7/06/07 | $6038.98 + $3335.92 + $56.07 = $9430.97 (8 days after the June 29 Pro Mold Transfer)
7/12/07 | $6038.97 + $3170.56 + $58.92 = $9268.45 (6 days after the July 06 Pro Mold Transfer)
7/19/07 | $6038.99 + $3651.13 + $58.92 = $9749.04 (9 days after the July 10 Pro Mold Transfer)
7/25/07 | $6038.98 + $3335.92 + $58.93 = $9433.83
Total = $94,468.14 / 10 = $9446.81
D. Note on page 15 that funds for ProMold payroll were transferred in from Lex Real to pay the payroll from 5/17/07 till the end of June. On 6/27/07, $15,000 (2 x $7500) back payments apprently were received. Subsequent weekly receipts from Pro Mold were to pay for "its'" own (ProMold's) payroll... and rightly so.
E. The clearly poor communication between two hostile legal entities is most assuredly not in the best interests of creditors or shareholders. However, the blatant misread of the Plasticon statement regarding payroll by Pro Plas is a divisive and IMO devious spin on the rightful need for the Pro Mold facility to pay it's own payroll in this Ch 11.
IMO these $7500 payments to Plasicon are for payroll, have nothing to do with anything other than payroll, and to imply otherwise requires the implier to prove the DIP monthly report (#158) incorrect. The dates and amounts on the DIP Monthly ending 31 July 07 appear to correspond to the Exhibits submitted by the Pro Plas creditor in other documents.
The link to the #158 document: tinyurl.com
siliconinvestor.com |
