Rosland Capital review: bankruptcy sale order and customer information

What the public record establishes

Rosland Capital LLC is the debtor in Chapter 11 case 2:26-bk-16650-BB in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles Division. The entered sale order was entered on 1 October 2026 after a 30 September sale hearing before Judge Sheri Bluebond. It grants Rosland authority to sell the defined Purchased Assets to American Hartford Gold, LLC under an Asset Purchase Agreement dated 29 September 2026.

The order identifies a $3,800,000 purchase price, including a $125,000 deposit. It describes the sale as covering customer information, trade names, trademarks and associated goodwill, plus domain names and websites, but only to the extent the Asset Purchase Agreement defines them as Purchased Assets. That qualification matters. The order says the listed schedules are illustrative rather than exhaustive, and it also identifies exclusions.

Our reading is that this is a status review, not a recommendation to buy from either business. The court record answers a question about an authorized information-asset transaction. It does not answer whether a specific purchase was delivered, where particular metal is held, whether an IRA exists, what a claim is worth, or who owes a given customer money.

What the sale order authorizes

The entered sale order approves the purchase agreement in its entirety and authorizes Rosland to consummate the sale according to that agreement. It calls American Hartford Gold, LLC the Buyer and says the Buyer is a good-faith purchaser for the stated bankruptcy-law purpose. The order also says that the sale may be completed free and clear of defined encumbrances, with those interests attaching to sale proceeds to the extent they existed before closing.

That language is not a blanket sale of everything connected with Rosland. The order says the Purchased Assets include customer information, trade names, trademarks and associated goodwill, and domain names and websites. It then expressly says they do not include excluded assets under the agreement, naming the Salesforce subscription, license and platform rights, hardware, Excluded Information, the Estate Copy and records relating to Adversely Affected Customers. It also says claims, causes of action and other estate assets not conveyed by the agreement are not included.

For a former customer, the practical point is simple: an authorized sale of defined information assets is not a finding about your individual transaction. Do not treat the use of the word “customer” in an asset description as proof that your account record was included, that a dealer holds your metal, or that a new company took over a contractual obligation. Those questions need the documents and institutions tied to your own transaction.

Authorization is not proof that the sale closed

The order authorized a closing, but it is not itself proof that closing occurred. It says the agreement provided for closing on the second business day after court approval, or on another date the debtor and buyer agreed to in writing. It also states that, at closing, the remaining $3,675,000 would be paid by wire and the $125,000 deposit credited against the $3,800,000 price.

The entered order is an authorization, not a closing certificate or payment record. It cannot establish a closing date or final performance of the listed payment terms.

The current roslandcapital.com notice is different evidence. The site identifies American Hartford Gold as the operator and says that it acquired certain Rosland assets, including client records, through a court-approved sale. It also says Rosland ceased operations. Those are the current operator's statements. They are relevant for understanding the former domain, but they do not replace a primary closing record and they do not establish an individual's asset or account status.

The order imposed specific privacy conditions

The court did more than authorize a transfer of information. After considering the consumer privacy ombudsman's report, the order found no showing that the sale would violate applicable non-bankruptcy law on privacy. It then preserved consumer rights under Rosland's privacy policy and applicable privacy, consumer-protection and unfair-or-deceptive-acts laws. The order specifically names rights to opt out of a sale or sharing of personal information, request deletion or correction, and limit processing.

For information delivered to the Buyer after closing, the order requires use only for retail precious-metals purposes consistent with Rosland's prior purposes. It says the Buyer may not disclose, sell or transfer that information to a third party in a way inconsistent with the applicable privacy policy without the affected consumer's affirmative opt-in consent. It also requires appropriate information-security controls, including strong encryption, and compliance with applicable privacy, data-security, breach-notification, do-not-call and anti-spam laws.

These conditions are not a promise that every former customer is now an American Hartford Gold customer. They apply to Transferred Customer Information, a defined term for the customer information and database delivered to the Buyer, and the operative duties apply from and after closing. The order also excludes Excluded Information and records of Adversely Affected Customers from the sale and says they must not be delivered to the Buyer.

Which privacy policy applies under the order

The timing of the notice affects the privacy-policy rule. For a consumer who had not yet received the required Consumer Notice and opt-out opportunity, the order says the Buyer must handle that person's Transferred Customer Information under Rosland's privacy policy as it stood on 2 July 2026. After a consumer receives the notice and does not opt out, the order permits use of the American Hartford Gold privacy policy that the consumer privacy ombudsman reviewed and that was in effect on the date of the ombudsman's 29 September 2026 report.

The order also requires notice and an opportunity to opt out before a material change to the Buyer privacy policy or a different use or disclosure of Transferred Customer Information. That is a defined court condition, not a general conclusion that every privacy policy change needs the same process for every person. The condition is tied to information transferred under this sale and to the order's stated circumstances.

The order preserves rights and imposes conditions on the Buyer, but it does not publish a list of every person whose data was transferred. It also does not let a public reader determine which privacy policy applied to a specific individual on a specific day without the notice and facts for that individual.

What the order says about notice and opting out

If the sale closed and information was transferred, the order requires the Buyer to provide a written Consumer Notice with its first introductory marketing communication to each customer and prospective customer whose information is included. The notice must identify the Buyer, explain how to reach its privacy policy and provide a clear no-cost opportunity to opt out for 30 days after the notice is distributed or published.

The order says an opt-out remains available after that initial period through the Buyer's privacy policy. It requires a web link and telephone support for the process. It also says the Buyer must promptly honor an opt-out by stopping use, disclosure, sale and sharing of that person's transferred information and, where applicable law requires it, deleting it. The order additionally requires a court certification after the opt-out period describing the notice steps and the number of people who opted out.

There is an important limit on how to use this information. The order does not show whether you were in the transferred database or whether you received a notice. If you receive a notice, read the privacy policy and the stated opt-out method before deciding whether to use it. If you do not receive one, do not infer from silence that your information was or was not transferred.

What the sale does not decide about accounts, metal or claims

A data-asset sale and a customer's financial position are separate matters. The order does not identify a particular IRA, bullion order, vault position, delivery status, refund request or bankruptcy claim. It does not say that a particular former customer became an American Hartford Gold client. It also says the Buyer is not assuming Rosland's liabilities, obligations, debts, commitments or claims, subject to limited exceptions for the Buyer's own post-closing obligations and the preserved privacy rights.

The operator notice makes a similar statement in its own voice: American Hartford Gold says it did not assume Rosland's debts, liabilities or outstanding customer obligations. That is an operator representation, not a court finding about an individual case. A purchaser's obligation concerning transferred information and a debtor's obligation on a past sale are not the same legal or factual question.

For an IRA, the custodian's own records are the starting point for your account status. IRS Publication 590-B explains the general trustee and distribution framework for IRAs, but it cannot establish what happened in a particular Rosland transaction. Check the custodian named in your statements for the account title, cash position, holdings, storage information and any pending instruction. Keep the dealer confirmation, custodian statement, correspondence and payment record together before asking anyone to reconcile them.

What former customers can check now

Start with facts that can be tied to your own records. If you opened an IRA, ask the custodian for a current statement and a written confirmation of the assets and cash it reports for that account. If you expected physical delivery outside an IRA, compare the dealer confirmation, payment record, shipping or delivery documentation and any communications you retained. Do not rely on a general web notice to answer a transaction-specific question.

Next, separate a request for records from a request for a remedy. The public order supports questions about consumer information and privacy conditions. It does not decide whether a customer is entitled to delivery, a refund or a distribution from the bankruptcy estate. Neither the entered order nor the operator notice establishes an individual claim or a filing deadline. Those questions depend on current case documents and individual facts.

Finally, keep the choice about a new purchase separate from any unresolved past transaction. A former-domain operator may offer a new quote, but a new precious-metals purchase needs its own written product, price, fees, delivery or custody terms and comparison. The older Rosland record does not make a new offer suitable, and an unanswered old transaction does not prove the terms of a new one.

The 2022 Washington consent order is historical context

There is also a public historic regulator record. On 4 August 2022, the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions, Securities Division entered consent order S-20-3045-22-CO01 involving Rosland Capital LLC and Marin Aleksov. The order describes Washington self-directed-IRA coin transactions and delivery delays, includes cease-and-desist relief and a $20,000 civil penalty.

The document says the respondents neither admitted nor denied its findings and conclusions. That is why we describe it as a consent-order record, not an admission or a current operating finding. It is also state-specific and predates the 2026 bankruptcy case. It should not be used to infer the outcome of every Rosland transaction or to make a claim about American Hartford Gold.

Historical public records can help a reader ask more precise questions, but they do not replace primary documentation for a personal account. If a date, amount or product appears in your own paperwork, preserve it exactly. A broad account of past regulatory proceedings cannot reconstruct a missing order confirmation or establish the present location of metal.

How to read a status review like this

Public filings and operator notices answer different questions. A court order can establish what the court authorized and what conditions it imposed. It cannot automatically prove later performance. An operator notice can identify how a current website presents itself and where it directs visitors. It cannot decide a disputed personal transaction merely because it names a new operator.

That distinction protects against two opposite mistakes. One is assuming that a customer-information sale means nothing changed. The other is assuming it moved every account, every piece of metal and every responsibility to the buyer. The entered order itself shows why neither shortcut works: it identifies specific assets, exclusions, privacy obligations and a separate treatment for liabilities.

We would not use this record to give individual legal, tax or investment instructions. If your documentation conflicts with a current account statement, ask the institution that issued the statement to explain the conflict in writing. For a question about rights in the bankruptcy, current court materials and qualified advice are more appropriate than a general company review. For a question about a new metal purchase, compare written terms before you authorize money to move.

Related reading before a new gold IRA decision

Use our custodian versus dealer guide to separate the roles that a general sales conversation can blur. The custodian administers an IRA, while a dealer supplies metal; neither label by itself answers where a particular asset is recorded. Our gold IRA buyback guide explains why a buyback discussion should be compared with an item-specific written bid and the custodian's transaction process.

American Hartford Gold is separately covered in our American Hartford Gold review. That review is not evidence that American Hartford Gold assumed Rosland obligations, and this status review is not an endorsement of a new transaction. They address different reader questions. If you are comparing a fresh quote, use the gold IRA company guide to frame the questions you want answered in writing.