Shanus-REA suit

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I seem to remember a small little news story about a tiny investment firm. Something like Bernie Madoff Securities. You are correct. There could never be any large scale malfeasance in the investment world. Just tiny little deals like Bernie.


Mark Medlin.

I wasn't referring to large-scale malfeasance as exhibited by one perpetrator like Bernie Madoff. I was referring to the sheer number of individuals engaging in unscrupulous activity in our hobby as compared to professions like the law, or investments. My comment was in reference to, and in support of what Jeff said here:

Originally Posted by calvindog

Hank, I can assure you that there is a higher percentage of people in the hobby/business with criminal records than there are in the field of politics, law, religion, finance and medicine.

To wit:

From Merriam-Webster
Definition of LARGE-SCALE
1 : involving many people or things.

If you needed clarification, you could have asked, and I'd have happily expounded on the point I was making. Instead, you made an assumption, and decided to respond like a smart ass. Furthermore-are you f'g kidding me with this? Do you think it's even remotely possible a licensed stockbroker could not know about Bernie Madoff? What, did you think that just because I went on disability, I magically developed amnesia, forgetting about what I'd done for the prior three plus years, while simultaneously losing touch with my professional contacts/colleagues/friends still gainfully employed within the industry? Did you think because I was no longer actively working for a broker-dealer that I would stop investing in my own trading account(s), and no longer stay abreast of investment news?

Clearly there are examples of people in the legal profession, and in investments, that have operated in illegal activity on a grand scale. No system is fool proof. But it is infinitely more difficult to further this kind of activity in investments than it is in the baseball card hobby. As was previously referenced, there is no collective body overseeing auction houses, no form of recourse available outside of civil court. And that can take several years, as evidenced by the central discussion of this thread. That process has not even been completed. Broker-dealers, and their individual employees, are subject to oversight and fines, which can be substantial, and happen quickly. These fines can be levied against entities and individuals without them ever stepping foot in a courthouse. Check out the last episode of Billions on Showtime. Dudley Mafee is a trader for the Axe Capitol hedge fund. The SEC fined him $181,000 for a tier three penalty, termed "fraud, and reckless disregard of regulatory requirements." When Mafee's complicity was brought to the attention of the SEC, the fine was imposed within mere days.

[Leon]

Hey Bill
You had me until the bolded part below. You might want to ask Bill, Doug and some others about that? I will probably post a little more later but this caught my eye

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I wasn't referring to large-scale malfeasance as exhibited by one perpetrator like Bernie Madoff. I was referring to the sheer number of individuals engaging in unscrupulous activity in our hobby as compared to professions like the law, or investments. My comment was in reference to, and in support of what Jeff said here:

To wit:

From Merriam-Webster
Definition of LARGE-SCALE
1 : involving many people or things.

If you needed clarification, you could have asked, and I'd have happily expounded on the point I was making. Instead, you made an assumption, and decided to respond like a smart ass. Furthermore-are you f'g kidding me with this? Do you think it's even remotely possible a licensed stockbroker could not know about Bernie Madoff? What, did you think that just because I went on disability, I magically developed amnesia, forgetting about what I'd done for the prior three plus years, while simultaneously losing touch with my professional contacts/colleagues/friends still gainfully employed within the industry? Did you think because I was no longer actively working for a broker-dealer that I would stop investing in my own trading account(s), and no longer stay abreast of investment news?

Clearly there are examples of people in the legal profession, and in investments, that have operated in illegal activity on a grand scale. No system is fool proof. But it is infinitely more difficult to further this kind of activity in investments than it is in the baseball card hobby. As was previously referenced, there is no collective body overseeing auction houses, no form of recourse available outside of civil court. And that can take several years, as evidenced by the central discussion of this thread. That process has not even been completed. Broker-dealers, and their individual employees, are subject to oversight and fines, which can be substantial, and happen quickly. These fines can be levied against entities and individuals without them ever stepping foot in a courthouse. Check out the last episode of Billions on Showtime. Dudley Mafee is a trader for the Axe Capitol hedge fund. The SEC fined him $181,000 for a tier three penalty, termed "fraud, and reckless disregard of regulatory requirements." When Mafee's complicity was brought to the attention of the SEC, the fine was imposed within mere days.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Leon

Hey Bill
You had me until the bolded part below. You might want to ask Bill, Doug and some others about that? I will probably post a little more later but this caught my eye

I was a bit steamed when I wrote that, Leon. And my apologies for the F bomb.

What other forms of recourse are there besides civil court? Can an auction house and a complainant enter into binding arbitration?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I was a bit steamed when I wrote that, Leon. And my apologies for the F bomb.

What other forms of recourse are there besides civil court? Can an auction house and a complainant enter into binding arbitration?

Bill, sorry I missed your question, private parties can certainly agree to arbitrate almost any dispute, and I see no reason they could not have done so here. However, it's frequently the case that one side, or both, perceives that they will have the advantage with a jury. Parties can also enlist a mediator to help them try to resolve their dispute, and that's popular these days in certain types of cases and sometimes useful. Certainly both alternatives are more cost-effective.

[oldjudge]

I thought the suit was about Corey recovering what he paid for some trophy balls which were alleged to have been painted with a type of paint that did not exist in the 19th century? Am I wrong, or was this part of the suit dismissed?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Count I. The case went to trial on Count II.

[Leon]

Jay,
Here are the allegations in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the First Amended Complaint brought by Corey.
Corey never bought the trophy balls where there was no sale with Nash. He bought others after that. The jury felt he relied on the false sale of the balls for future purchases, with clear and convincing evidence (according to the statute that had to be overcome). My guess is that if the transcripts ever come out they will be interesting to a few, myself included.

To summarize even more -
First count, for lulling him into giving up his claim against Mastro on the balls he did buy. Judge didn't buy it.
Second count, for manipulating the market and inducing him to overpay on other stuff. Jury bought it.


Hope that helps clear a little of this mess up. It is worth repeating that appeals are expected.

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I thought the suit was about Corey recovering what he paid for some trophy balls which were alleged to have been painted with a type of paint that did not exist in the 19th century? Am I wrong, or was this part of the suit dismissed?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Count I was about different balls that Corey did buy. The "1861 Trophy Ball" and the "1853 Trophy Ball."

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Leon

Jay,
Here are the allegations in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the First Amended Complaint brought by Corey.
Corey never bought the trophy balls where there was no sale with Nash. He bought others after that. The jury felt he relied on the false sale of the balls for future purchases, with clear and convincing evidence (according to the statute that had to be overcome). My guess is that if the transcripts ever come out they will be interesting to a few, myself included.

To summarize even more -
First count, for lulling him into giving up his claim against Mastro on the balls he did buy. Judge didn't buy it.
Second count, for manipulating the market and inducing him to overpay on other stuff. Jury bought it.


Hope that helps clear a little of this mess up. It is worth repeating that appeals are expected.

Point #11 is the scary one, for me.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Leon

Jay,
Here are the allegations in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the First Amended Complaint brought by Corey.
Corey never bought the trophy balls where there was no sale with Nash. He bought others after that. The jury felt he relied on the false sale of the balls for future purchases, with clear and convincing evidence (according to the statute that had to be overcome). My guess is that if the transcripts ever come out they will be interesting to a few, myself included.

To summarize even more -
First count, for lulling him into giving up his claim against Mastro on the balls he did buy. Judge didn't buy it.
Second count, for manipulating the market and inducing him to overpay on other stuff. Jury bought it.


Hope that helps clear a little of this mess up. It is worth repeating that appeals are expected.

Something's missing there right?
What's shown makes it look like someone consigned stuff, shilled it, never paid. Then a second person relies on those sales and sues because he overpaid? And that all the items involved were fake? Sounds like the AH is being punished for what the consigner did.
Not that it isn't the law, it just seems less than fair (I know by now that those things aren't always aligned)

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill, sorry I missed your question, private parties can certainly agree to arbitrate almost any dispute, and I see no reason they could not have done so here. However, it's frequently the case that one side, or both, perceives that they will have the advantage with a jury. Parties can also enlist a mediator to help them try to resolve their dispute, and that's popular these days in certain types of cases and sometimes useful. Certainly both alternatives are more cost-effective.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't have a problem mediating but I will never voluntarily participate in an arbitration. Yes, I am sure that the fees in this case were high. But that can also occur in a long, ugly arbitration. I have a friend who is arguing an appeal of an arbitration award he won in a business dispute at the 10th Circuit next week. Its been going on for years. His fees are huge, as are the fees of the other side's attorney, I'm sure. Plus, you also get to pay the fees of the arbitrator or the arbitration panel if there is more than one. I also think that process is skewed in favor of those who participate in arbitration frequently. No thanks. I'll take a jury any day.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't have a problem mediating but I will never voluntarily participate in an arbitration. Yes, I am sure that the fees in this case were high. But that can also occur in a long, ugly arbitration. I have a friend who is arguing an appeal of an arbitration award he won in a business dispute at the 10th Circuit next week. Its been going on for years. His fees are huge, as are the fees of the other side's attorney, I'm sure. Plus, you also get to pay the fees of the arbitrator or the arbitration panel if there is more than one. I also think that process is skewed in favor of those who participate in arbitration frequently. No thanks. I'll take a jury any day.

The commercial arbitrations I have been involved in, and I am not saying they were inexpensive by any means, greatly streamlined the motion practice and massive discovery that make complex civil litigation so inordinately expensive. It may not be true in every instance, but assuming you have a dispute that isn't going to be resolved by dispositive motion or settlement, arbitration usually will end up costing less in my opinion. Now of course as you rightly point out there may be other reasons you would still prefer a jury or bench trial, no question.

[frankbmd]

Are the baseball challenge rules mediated in NYC more akin to an arbitration panel or a jury trial?

I would say an arbitration panel in NYC and a jury trial in the broadcast booth.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill, sorry I missed your question, private parties can certainly agree to arbitrate almost any dispute, and I see no reason they could not have done so here. However, it's frequently the case that one side, or both, perceives that they will have the advantage with a jury. Parties can also enlist a mediator to help them try to resolve their dispute, and that's popular these days in certain types of cases and sometimes useful. Certainly both alternatives are more cost-effective.

Thanks, Peter. I guess, in the same position, I'd go for a jury trial, even though it might drag on for years. In arbitration, if you're not happy with the resolution, you're stuck, as there's no appeal.

Back to the topic at hand.

[Mdmtx]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I wasn't referring to large-scale malfeasance as exhibited by one perpetrator like Bernie Madoff. I was referring to the sheer number of individuals engaging in unscrupulous activity in our hobby as compared to professions like the law, or investments. My comment was in reference to, and in support of what Jeff said here:
Bui


To wit:

From Merriam-Webster
Definition of LARGE-SCALE
1 : involving many people or things.

If you needed clarification, you could have asked, and I'd have happily expounded on the point I was making. Instead, you made an assumption, and decided to respond like a smart ass. Furthermore-are you fucking kidding me with this? Do you think it's even remotely possible a licensed stockbroker could not know about Bernie Madoff? What, did you think that just because I went on disability, I magically developed amnesia, forgetting about what I'd done for the prior three plus years, while simultaneously losing touch with my professional contacts/colleagues/friends still gainfully employed within the industry? Did you think because I was no longer actively working for a broker-dealer that I would stop investing in my own trading account(s), and no longer stay abreast of investment news?

Clearly there are examples of people in the legal profession, and in investments, that have operated in illegal activity on a grand scale. No system is fool proof. But it is infinitely more difficult to further this kind of activity in investments than it is in the baseball card hobby. As was previously referenced, there is no collective body overseeing auction houses, no form of recourse available outside of civil court. And that can take several years, as evidenced by the central discussion of this thread. That process has not even been completed. Broker-dealers, and their individual employees, are subject to oversight and fines, which can be substantial, and happen quickly. These fines can be levied against entities and individuals without them ever stepping foot in a courthouse. Check out the last episode of Billions on Showtime. Dudley Mafee is a trader for the Axe Capitol hedge fund. The SEC fined him $181,000 for a tier three penalty, termed "fraud, and reckless disregard of regulatory requirements." When Mafee's complicity was brought to the attention of the SEC, the fine was imposed within mere days.

I didn't make it personal. You did. I merely pointed out that money corrupts and contrary to your assertion, no industry is safe from those hell bent on gaming the system. Call me smartass if you want, I just pointed out facts! I am surprised that all the stock brokers knew, yet he rang the bell and was held in esteem.

Mark Medlin

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/libor-scandal.asp

https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-32.htm

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I didn't make it personal. You did.

Because clearly this....

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I seem to remember a small little news story about a tiny investment firm. Something like Bernie Madoff Securities. You are correct. There could never be any large scale malfeasance in the investment world. Just tiny little deals like Bernie.

didn't sound at all condescending.

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I merely pointed out that money corrupts and contrary to your assertion, no industry is safe from those hell bent on gaming the system.

Where did I assess that any industry was safe from fraud?

Here's part of my first post:

Originally Posted by the 'stache

There are going to be those who engage in nefarious activity in any large group of people. It's unavoidable. Money attracts the unscrupulous.

Clearly, people are not going to engage in fraudulent activity if the system is foolproof, are they? That's tantamount to walking into prison, opening a cell door, and closing it behind them.

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

Call me smartass if you want, I just pointed out facts!

If it's your belief that I stated, in essence, "fraud on a large scale was an impossibility in the investments industry", statement of fact to repudiate my assertion would look something like this:

"Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme cost his investors an estimated $50 billion."

You didn't do that. So, don't try to demure now, ok?

[Peter_Spaeth]

We sure seem to have strayed from the jury verdict, if we ever were there at all.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We sure seem to have strayed from the jury verdict, if we ever were there at all.

That's partly on me, Peter.

I think the jury verdict is interesting, but, as you alluded to, the whole thing is not yet set in stone, because there could be further motions submitted, or an appeal.

As things stand currently, I'd be more likely to discuss the verdict in depth if I could pour over the court transcript.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

That's partly on me, Peter.

I think the jury verdict is interesting, but, as you alluded to, the whole thing is not yet set in stone, because there could be further motions submitted, or an appeal.

As things stand currently, I'd be more likely to discuss the verdict in depth if I could pour over the court transcript.

Bill hopefully at some point they will be released, or with only minor redactions. That day is probably some time off. But even knowing what we know, and subject to the caveat about further proceedings which I noted in my post, it still seemed an event worthy of reporting and discussing. I would guess that if the defendant had a different name, we would be having a much livelier discussion.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill hopefully at some point they will be released, or with only minor redactions. That day is probably some time off. But even knowing what we know, and subject to the caveat about further proceedings which I noted in my post, it still seemed an event worthy of reporting and discussing. I would guess that if the defendant had a different name, we would be having a much livelier discussion.

Honestly, Peter, for my part, the name(s) involved don't have as much to do with my hesitancy to jump into this with both feet, though I could certainly see this being a factor with other posters who have had long-standing relationships with the co-defendants. I'm just somewhat leery of participating in discussions of legally determined guilt-where what we say becomes, in essence, part of public record-without knowing everything that transpired. Am I being overcautious? Probably. But absent complete information, it's too easy to misstate something, and get into hot water.

I'm probably rambling a bit, and it's possible I overreacted to Mark's post, too. I've never had any issue with him, but it sure seemed that he was being patronizing. I've been up 16 hours without sleep...

Mark, if I did misinterpret your comment, then I apologize.

Peter, I'll come back to this a little later tonight, after I've seen my pillow for a while. When I'm lucid again, I can tiptoe through my feelings on what's transpired, thus far.