In re Vischschoonmaker, Ossen-Dryver Galleries International, Inc.

35 B.R. 816
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Hawaii
DecidedNovember 28, 1983
DocketBankruptcy No. 82-00473
StatusPublished

This text of 35 B.R. 816 (In re Vischschoonmaker, Ossen-Dryver Galleries International, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Hawaii primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Vischschoonmaker, Ossen-Dryver Galleries International, Inc., 35 B.R. 816 (Haw. 1983).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEE

JON J. CHINEN, Bankruptcy Judge.

On March 16, 1988, Ibrahim Nemetnejad (Applicant) filed an Application for Appointment of Trustee. On April 18, 1983, Abraham Vischschoonmaker aka Abbie Vischschoonmaker, (Mr. V), Shalom Brothers, Inc., a New York Corporation, and Walter A. Yim and Associates, Inc., a Hawaii corporation, (hereafter jointly Co-Applicants) filed their Joinder of Co-Applicants [817]*817For Appointment of Trustee, and Ralph S. Aoki, the former Trustee herein, filed his Joinder In Application For the Appointment of a Trustee.

Hearings on the application were held over several days. Present at the various hearings were V. Spencer Page, Esq., attorney for Applicant, Michael A. Yoshida, Esq., attorney for Ralph S. Aoki, former Trustee, Charles S. Lima, Esq., former attorney for Vischschoonmaker, Ossendryver Galleries International, Inc., (VOGI) and also attorney for Drakespur Antiquities, Ltd. (Drakespur), Joint Venture of July 11,1982, and Morice Lidchi; Ray A. Findlay, Esq., attorney for Morice Lidchi (Lidchi); V. Thomas Rice, Esq., attorney for Co-Applicants; • Paul A. Tomar, Esq., attorney for Beverly S. Nelson, (Ms. Nelson); and Richard H. Lachman, Esq., successor attorney for VOGI.

Based upon the evidence adduced, the memoranda and records in the file, and arguments of counsel, the Court enters the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In February 1979, Mr. Morice Ossendry-ver (Mr. O) and Mr. V formed VOGI, the Debtor corporation, with Mr. O and Mr. V each owning one-half (¥2) of the $30,000 shares of common stock issued. Ms. Nelson was the secretary-treasurer.

In 1980, the common shares of VOGI were converted to preferred shares with Mr. O and Mr. V holding equal shares, and ten shares of common stock, par value of $1.00 per share, were issued to Ms. Nelson. As part of this conversion, promissory notes held by Mr. O payable by VOGI were reaffirmed. These promissory notes included one note dated January 7, 1980, in the amount of $74,344.00, and another note of the same date, amended November 4, 1980, in the amount of $112,007.19.

Attorney Charles S. Lima and Ms. Nelson have filed affidavits in this case averring that on April 16, 1981, Mr. V executed a trust instrument in which the trust corpus consisted of Mr. V’s 15,000 preferred shares of stock in VOGI, and two promissory notes payable by VOGI to Mr. V, both dated January 7, 1980, with one being in the amount of $74,334.00, and the other $133,-021.12. Mr. Lima, who represented VOGI in the instant case from its outset until August 29, 1983, was named as the trustee of this trust. There was apparently another trust instrument executed contemporaneously by Ms. Nelson, with Mr. Lima as the trustee, the result of which was that the two trusts held all preferred and common shares of VOGI, as well as debt instruments payable by VOGI.

On September 21, 1981, to settle an ongoing controversy between Mr. O and Mr. V, an agreement was signed between VOGI and Mr. O. By this agreement, Mr. O surrendered to VOGI his 15,000 preferred shares of stock and the previously described promissory notes, in exchange for the issuance of a new promissory note in the amount of $70,000.00 and a quantity of Oriental carpets equal in value to the sum of $112,000.00. VOGI-owned carpets constituted the carpets conveyed to Mr. O as part of this agreement.

Although pursuant to the September 21, 1981 agreement Mr. O was to receive sixteen carpets previously traded in for VOGI carpets sold by Mr. O during March and April, 1980, the sixteen carpets had become VOGI property when they were traded in.

Also settled as part of the September 21, 1981 agreement was the claim of VOGI for any reimbursement for the storage, shipping, and insuring of a carpet known as the Hereke “S”, which apparently was not claimed as an asset of VOGI. In addition, VOGI also assumed certain debts to trade creditors incurred purportedly on behalf of VOGI by Mr. O, and indemnified Mr. O for any claims made by trade creditors.

A loose “holding” arrangement, whereby carpets ordered from the Applicant were sent to VOGI from Bermuda was also in existence during this period. In this “holding” arrangement, the disposition of the carpets and proceeds from the sales, if any, were never clearly defined through docu[818]*818mentation between and among VOGI, Mr. V and Mr. 0.

In approximately January, 1982, Mr. 0 filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii seeking to enforce the 1981 agreement. VOGI counter-sued in a separate action in the same court, seeking to enjoin Mr. 0 from using company customer listings and otherwise representing that he continued to act for the company in the sale of Persian carpets in his possession.

In the first week of April, 1982, Ms. Nelson, acting in her corporate capacity, transferred all of the carpet inventory of VOGI to an Isle of Jersey offshore corporation called Drakespur Antiquities, Ltd. which she had caused to be formed. This was a “paper” transaction, intended to allow the continued sale of the Persian carpets from VOGI without interference from Mr. 0 in the pursuit of his federal lawsuit against VOGI. Carpets transferred to Drakespur at this time were exclusively VOGI carpets.

At the time of the transfer of carpets to Drakespur, Drakespur was controlled by a board of directors in New Jersey, and Ms. Nelson was the spokesperson for the corporation. Cornelius Van Beek was listed as the chairman of Drakespur, as that title was used in describing the officers of an Isle of Jersey corporation; Mr. Van Beek was also a vice-president and a Director of VOGI. Drakespur was not registered as a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Hawaii with the then Department of Regulatory Agencies of the State of Hawaii.

At the time of the Drakespur transfer, Mr. V had a claim against part of the inventory pursuant to a divorce action between Ms. Nelson and himself in the family court of the State of Hawaii. Mr. Lidchi also had made a claim to two of the carpets which were in Ms. Nelson’s care at the time of the transfer.

During the period in which Drakespur marketed the VOGI inventory, proceeds accruing to Drakespur from the sale of Persian carpets were variously used to pay exhibition debts in Phoenix incurred by Mr. V, costs on exhibitions or auctions as part of Drakespur exhibitions, and also directly to VOGI indebtedness. A contemplated cost-of-carpet plus 20% net profit from these proceeds was never realized by VOGI because of VOGI’s large accrued indebtedness.

During the time Drakespur marketed the carpets transferred from VOGI, there were at least three separate accounts bearing Drakespur identity. These included the following:

a. An account with the Bank of Hawaii, for which Ms. Nelson was the sole signatory.
b. An account in Phoenix.
c. An account in Denver.

There was also a proposed account in Bermuda. Although subpoenae duces tecum had been issued from this Court addressed to VOGI and Ms. Nelson, individually, none of these account records were produced in Court.

From the time of the transfer of the VOGI carpets to Drakespur until the execution of a July 11, 1982 settlement agreement, 35 of a total of approximately 102 carpets were sold.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 B.R. 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-vischschoonmaker-ossen-dryver-galleries-international-inc-hib-1983.