As a well-regarded wholesaler of goods in the overstock liquidations and reverse logistics business, I am writing to warn others about selling to online retailer, Marina Mikhailova, Accessible Cache LLC, and A-Cache of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, as I believe that I have been targeted by Ms. Mikhailova for an intimidation scam, for which she has threatened to launch a mass-defamation campaign on 10/07/16 if I do not concede to her continuing demands –even after I have already made what, in the eyes of the court, is a resolution in full to the following complaint which may be completely fraudulent.
On August 26, 2016, we came to an agreement for Ms. Mikhailova to purchase a mixed lot of 4,504 units of new overstock apparel from an Amazon facility at a price of $8,905.35 including shipping, and prepaid via wire transfer. Ms. Mikhailova called and/or emailed daily for four days to track her shipment during transit. Obviously, any new buyer in this industry first would wonder if they will receive the goods at all. The goods arrived on 9/02/16 and she confirmed receipt in a good-natured email. On 9/20/16 I retrieved my business mail to find not one, but two certified letters, the first of which was dated 9/15/16, which viscously and insultingly attacked my personal integrity and alleged that we attempted: 1) to sell worthless oil and water damaged products as new items instead of disposing of these items as trash, 2) to sell Amazon damaged returns as new items instead of disposing of these items as trash, 3) deceptively listing a larger quantity of high value items on the manifest that were not in the shipment and 4) including in the shipment a large quantity of very low value items that are not listed on the manifest. (Note: This is a common practice in the industry to include a few extra similar products for which a buyer might find value.)
Within her condescending letters she demanded a full refund with a deadline of 9/29, including picking up the product, with threats of defamation in online forums, notification of FBI, FCC, USDOT, BBB, and District Attorneys of Minneapolis and Baton Rouge, along with threats of suing for “punitive damages” –having assessed her time in processing the four pallets of inventory to have cost her $5,000.00 . Of the 29 pictures she sent as “supporting evidence”, 17 of them (59%) had the title of “Water, Wet, and Mildewed”, 5 or (17%) as “Oil Contaminated” and the remaining 7 or (24 %) as “Returns, Damage, and Other”. In total, 79% of the photos related to “Water, Wet, Mildewed and Oil Contaminated” and it was clearly noted as her top complaint.
I have never been met with this type of response in nearly five years of wholesale in the reverse logistics business. Typically, a nervous buyer who is checking the status of her shipment daily would spot check the goods immediately upon arrival. Ms. Mikhailova waited 14 days before mailing the first of her letters knowing that my notification would not arrive until several days later in the mail (18 to be exact, due to a weekend). Certainly, if the issues were as numerous as she purported, a simple spot check of the goods, only four pallets of the same product, would have alerted her to the issue. I have worked with hundreds of customers and never had a problem resolving an issue when notified in a timely manner. While I understand that to take complete inventory of this many pieces would take some time, it would be a normal response towards creating a new relationship to place an immediate call to say “We appear to have a problem, but it will take a while to assess it completely.” In some cases, we would have it rectified immediately by having the product picked up and issuing a full refund, but I found it suspect that a buyer who called daily to track shipment would not spot-check the goods. I wondered what could have happened to the goods during the 18 days between the time of receipt and the time I received her first notification –so, I began to research.
Ms. Mikhalova’s facility is in zip code 70816 in Baton Rouge, which was one of the four hardest hit zip codes in East Baton Rouge Parish during the historic floods which occurred just two weeks prior to her receiving the shipment. Though I have confirmed with Parish officials that her building and immediate neighbors were not underwater, they do not track less than one foot of water, Parish maps online indicate her street was overflowing onto her property, and aerial photos show neighboring blocks to be mostly underwater. Regardless of whether or not her property was underwater is the fact that there was a lingering and indisputable post-flood environment which causes mold and mildew. In fact, during 10 of the 14 days she had the product before writing her first scathing letter, the humidity reached 100%! I’ve complied tons of records and links which show that each of the 14 days reached record levels of average low humidity, average high humidity, and record high temperature when compared to a 30-year average and I will not allow my good name to be taken advantage of when clearly these good were affected by the environment while in her possession.
Regarding her other complaints of greatly exaggerated shortages, customer returns being mixed in, etc, Ms. Mikhailova is well-versed in the industry and understands that these goods are sorted in a fast-paced environment. Due to the possibility of human error with the manifest and sorting, we have always worked with our customers to resolve any issues. Rather than through easy conversation, I was forced to write a response letter which was every bit as detailed as her own. In consulting my attorney, he suggested a substantial refund would be warranted and most cost-effective due to the likely potential that Ms. Mikhailova’s business model is structured around extorting suppliers in an industry where small discrepancies with inventory are common, but which may open the door for litigious types to exploit them. With that, my letter included a check for $4,452.68 which is 50% of the full sum paid by Ms. Mikhailova, including shipping, with the stipulation that by cashing the check it would constitute a complete resolution to the issue, with no further obligation to either party, and with no defamation of me or my company by her in online forums, government agencies, etc. From a legal standpoint, she had three choices at this time: 1) Refuse the check and try to negotiate a higher amount with me directly. 2) Refuse the check and proceed with legal action. 3) Accept the check as a complete resolution per the terms within my letter.
My letter was received on her “deadline” of 9/29 and Ms. Mikhailova promptly cashed the check which cleared on 10/01/16. I thought the issued had been settled, but on 10/04 I received another scathing certified letter alleging that my reference to the floods were a “smoke-screen” and that her building was not underwater, though she carefully avoided the main issue of humidity which I had carefully documented. Though she was demanding a full refund and received half, she is back to demand another $2,500 by 10/07 or she will proceed with her threats. In her letter, she admits to crossing out the word “complete” in the memo of my check which said “complete resolution” which supports her dishonest intentions. In consulting my attorney, he stated that that any court would view the receipt of my certified letter and cashing of the refund check per the terms therein to constitute “Full accord and satisfaction” and any further allegations she may bring would be dismissed. Any further attempt by Ms. Mikhailova to defame my company or reputation would be to violate what has become a legally binding contract since she consented to the issue as having been resolved completely by cashing the refund check. I will be happy to provide complete documentation to any party who wishes to learn what they should expect when dealing with Ms. Marina Mikhailova.
Accessible Cache, LLC Reviews
As a well-regarded wholesaler of goods in the overstock liquidations and reverse logistics business, I am writing to warn others about selling to online retailer, Marina Mikhailova, Accessible Cache LLC, and A-Cache of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, as I believe that I have been targeted by Ms. Mikhailova for an intimidation scam, for which she has threatened to launch a mass-defamation campaign on 10/07/16 if I do not concede to her continuing demands –even after I have already made what, in the eyes of the court, is a resolution in full to the following complaint which may be completely fraudulent.
On August 26, 2016, we came to an agreement for Ms. Mikhailova to purchase a mixed lot of 4,504 units of new overstock apparel from an Amazon facility at a price of $8,905.35 including shipping, and prepaid via wire transfer. Ms. Mikhailova called and/or emailed daily for four days to track her shipment during transit. Obviously, any new buyer in this industry first would wonder if they will receive the goods at all. The goods arrived on 9/02/16 and she confirmed receipt in a good-natured email. On 9/20/16 I retrieved my business mail to find not one, but two certified letters, the first of which was dated 9/15/16, which viscously and insultingly attacked my personal integrity and alleged that we attempted: 1) to sell worthless oil and water damaged products as new items instead of disposing of these items as trash, 2) to sell Amazon damaged returns as new items instead of disposing of these items as trash, 3) deceptively listing a larger quantity of high value items on the manifest that were not in the shipment and 4) including in the shipment a large quantity of very low value items that are not listed on the manifest. (Note: This is a common practice in the industry to include a few extra similar products for which a buyer might find value.)
Within her condescending letters she demanded a full refund with a deadline of 9/29, including picking up the product, with threats of defamation in online forums, notification of FBI, FCC, USDOT, BBB, and District Attorneys of Minneapolis and Baton Rouge, along with threats of suing for “punitive damages” –having assessed her time in processing the four pallets of inventory to have cost her $5,000.00 . Of the 29 pictures she sent as “supporting evidence”, 17 of them (59%) had the title of “Water, Wet, and Mildewed”, 5 or (17%) as “Oil Contaminated” and the remaining 7 or (24 %) as “Returns, Damage, and Other”. In total, 79% of the photos related to “Water, Wet, Mildewed and Oil Contaminated” and it was clearly noted as her top complaint.
I have never been met with this type of response in nearly five years of wholesale in the reverse logistics business. Typically, a nervous buyer who is checking the status of her shipment daily would spot check the goods immediately upon arrival. Ms. Mikhailova waited 14 days before mailing the first of her letters knowing that my notification would not arrive until several days later in the mail (18 to be exact, due to a weekend). Certainly, if the issues were as numerous as she purported, a simple spot check of the goods, only four pallets of the same product, would have alerted her to the issue. I have worked with hundreds of customers and never had a problem resolving an issue when notified in a timely manner. While I understand that to take complete inventory of this many pieces would take some time, it would be a normal response towards creating a new relationship to place an immediate call to say “We appear to have a problem, but it will take a while to assess it completely.” In some cases, we would have it rectified immediately by having the product picked up and issuing a full refund, but I found it suspect that a buyer who called daily to track shipment would not spot-check the goods. I wondered what could have happened to the goods during the 18 days between the time of receipt and the time I received her first notification –so, I began to research.
Ms. Mikhalova’s facility is in zip code 70816 in Baton Rouge, which was one of the four hardest hit zip codes in East Baton Rouge Parish during the historic floods which occurred just two weeks prior to her receiving the shipment. Though I have confirmed with Parish officials that her building and immediate neighbors were not underwater, they do not track less than one foot of water, Parish maps online indicate her street was overflowing onto her property, and aerial photos show neighboring blocks to be mostly underwater. Regardless of whether or not her property was underwater is the fact that there was a lingering and indisputable post-flood environment which causes mold and mildew. In fact, during 10 of the 14 days she had the product before writing her first scathing letter, the humidity reached 100%! I’ve complied tons of records and links which show that each of the 14 days reached record levels of average low humidity, average high humidity, and record high temperature when compared to a 30-year average and I will not allow my good name to be taken advantage of when clearly these good were affected by the environment while in her possession.
Regarding her other complaints of greatly exaggerated shortages, customer returns being mixed in, etc, Ms. Mikhailova is well-versed in the industry and understands that these goods are sorted in a fast-paced environment. Due to the possibility of human error with the manifest and sorting, we have always worked with our customers to resolve any issues. Rather than through easy conversation, I was forced to write a response letter which was every bit as detailed as her own. In consulting my attorney, he suggested a substantial refund would be warranted and most cost-effective due to the likely potential that Ms. Mikhailova’s business model is structured around extorting suppliers in an industry where small discrepancies with inventory are common, but which may open the door for litigious types to exploit them. With that, my letter included a check for $4,452.68 which is 50% of the full sum paid by Ms. Mikhailova, including shipping, with the stipulation that by cashing the check it would constitute a complete resolution to the issue, with no further obligation to either party, and with no defamation of me or my company by her in online forums, government agencies, etc. From a legal standpoint, she had three choices at this time: 1) Refuse the check and try to negotiate a higher amount with me directly. 2) Refuse the check and proceed with legal action. 3) Accept the check as a complete resolution per the terms within my letter.
My letter was received on her “deadline” of 9/29 and Ms. Mikhailova promptly cashed the check which cleared on 10/01/16. I thought the issued had been settled, but on 10/04 I received another scathing certified letter alleging that my reference to the floods were a “smoke-screen” and that her building was not underwater, though she carefully avoided the main issue of humidity which I had carefully documented. Though she was demanding a full refund and received half, she is back to demand another $2,500 by 10/07 or she will proceed with her threats. In her letter, she admits to crossing out the word “complete” in the memo of my check which said “complete resolution” which supports her dishonest intentions. In consulting my attorney, he stated that that any court would view the receipt of my certified letter and cashing of the refund check per the terms therein to constitute “Full accord and satisfaction” and any further allegations she may bring would be dismissed. Any further attempt by Ms. Mikhailova to defame my company or reputation would be to violate what has become a legally binding contract since she consented to the issue as having been resolved completely by cashing the refund check. I will be happy to provide complete documentation to any party who wishes to learn what they should expect when dealing with Ms. Marina Mikhailova.