Dear Customers,
Today, the Receiver, Wigberto Lugo Mender, sent you an email that was dated August 26th, but in fact only went out today. While the date discrepancy is not the main issue, the substance of his letter contains serious misrepresentations that must be corrected with the actual facts.
1. Qenta Never Owned the Assets
Contrary to his claim, the assets transferred to Qenta under the Purchase & Assumption Agreement (PAA) always remained property of Euro Pacific Bank. The PAA was terminated before any closing took place. Both the New York State judge who granted the TRO and the Federal judge who later reviewed it agreed that if the bank brought an action to recover these assets, it would prevail. That is why the TRO was granted and then upheld. The only reason the TRO was later vacated is because the Federal judge ruled that only the Receiver has the authority to act on behalf of the bank. The Receiver’s statement that these assets “never belonged to the bank” is a total fabrication. Once he was appointed Receiver, all of these assets were frozen, and customers lost access to them.
2. Qenta Paid the Bank — Not Me
Qenta acquired custody of the bank’s assets and was required to assume its liabilities. It even made the first installment of the purchase price — $500,000 — which was paid to the bank, not to me personally. Any suggestion otherwise is dishonest and misleading.
3. Silver Holdings Are Not Frozen
The Receiver claims that the custodian froze customer silver. That is false. The custodian, Silver Bullion Pte Ltd in Singapore, has confirmed directly to me that they are prepared to release all silver to customers immediately — but they are just waiting for written confirmation from the Receiver, which he has refused to provide. The receiver is the only obstacle preventing customers from recovering their silver.
4. Subsidiaries Were Bank Assets
The Receiver admits in his own letter that Euro Pacific Securities, Euro Pacific Funds, and Euro Pacific Advisors “were wholly owned subsidiaries of Euro Pacific International Bank.” If they were wholly owned subsidiaries, then by definition their value and assets were part of the bank’s estate. Yet he now claims these subsidiaries — and the mutual funds and brokerage accounts they managed — “never belonged to the bank” and were outside the liquidation process. That position is absurd. The clearest example is the $19 million in cash held at Interactive Brokers. Those funds came directly from customer deposits at Euro Pacific Bank, which the bank chose to place in an IB account through its subsidiary, Euro Pacific Securities. Under the terminated PAA, Qenta was not given the cash directly but was transferred ownership of Euro Pacific Securities, which held the account. Since the PAA never closed, Qenta never legally acquired Euro Pacific Securities or the IB account. To now claim this $19 million of customer deposits was never part of the bank’s estate is indefensible.
5. The Receiver’s Contradiction on Responsibility
In his letter, the Receiver blames me for having signed the agreement with Qenta. What he leaves out is that the agreement was signed three months after he was appointed Receiver. By that time, he was already in charge of the bank, including approving the PAA, overseeing the migration of customers to Qenta and reconciling the cash balances — the latter two tasks he failed to complete.
More importantly, once the bank was in receivership, any rights or responsibilities I once had under the agreement automatically transferred to him. That is exactly why the Federal judge vacated the TRO: he ruled that even though I signed the agreement, I no longer had any authority to enforce it because the bank was in receivership. Therefore only the Receiver could legally enforce it.
Two judges have already made clear that the bank would prevail in an action to recover these assets. The Federal judge made equally clear that only the Receiver has the authority to bring that action. Yet instead of fulfilling his duty, he seeks to shift blame to me while refusing to exercise the very authority the courts have confirmed belongs exclusively to him.
6. A New Ask: Assignment of Rights
Up to now, I have only asked the Receiver to delegate me authority to act on behalf of the bank. So far he has refused. However, if he truly believes that the assets now in Qenta’s possession never belonged to the bank, then he should have no objection to assigning all of the bank’s rights to those assets directly to the Litigation Recovery Trust. If that assignment were made, the Trust could pursue Qenta in its own right, without further obstruction.
If he refuses, the Trust can still act based on the collective rights of customers who assign their claims directly to it. But an assignment from the bank would allow the action to commence much sooner, at a much lower cost, and with far less work. If he refuses even this, then his position is exposed as a deliberate cover-up of his unwillingness to act.
7. Clawbacks Against Insiders
As part of this effort, the Litigation Recovery Trust will also pursue claims not only against Qenta and its executives, but against any insiders or employees who knowingly participated in or benefitted from the misappropriation of customer assets. That includes unjust enrichment claims, and if necessary, clawing back assets transferred to Brent De Jong’s soon-to-be ex-wife as part of their divorce proceedings.
Next Steps
If the Receiver continues refusing to fulfill his duty, customers will not be left without recourse. I am prepared to do the Receiver’s job for him by moving forward with the formation of the Litigation Recovery Trust so that customers can collectively pursue all claims necessary to recover what is rightfully theirs.
I will continue pressing for accountability, correcting misinformation, and updating you on the actions we will take to recover what is rightfully yours.
Please note: this message is my personal update and perspective, and not an official communication from the Receiver or OCIF. You should continue to monitor their notices for formal instructions about the liquidation process.
Sincerely,
Peter Schiff, sole shareholder Euro Pacific Bank.