|
Is shill bidding relegated to only "house owned" lots? As a consignor, would you "turn the other cheek" if you figured a house was shilling in your favor?
|
James -- I mean Captain Obvious :) -- why do you think there is so much love still on this board for certain auction houses which are obviously crooked? Why do you think I took such a beating 5 years ago for proclaiming that Mastro was crooked?
|
Does anyone know why it is not possible (or is it possible) to set up a snipe service for auction houses? I use auctionstealer for Ebay whenever there is something I want badly and most of the time I get the item for a fraction of my max. Is there a technical reason why a similar set-up would not work for an auction house? Perhaps the overtime periods?
|
Sorry Jeff, it takes some of us longer. On consignor items, do you think shilling is/was done upon request or without their knowledge or both?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Sniping
The format for the types of auctions that the Auction Companies run, makes sniping tools irrelevant, with the extended bidding periods, there is no reason to have sniping tools.
|
Dan,
Thanks for the mention. Gavelsnipe does indeed function for Heritage auctions, but (as an earlier post addressed) the extended bidding format does still allow the sniper to be outbid before the auction close. It's still a useful tool though, and great for eBay as it's free and as effective as any other sniping program out there. |
The latest......
|
This is an interesting and important lawsuit if for no other reason than the hobby prominence of the two men involved.
I found this sentence in the O'Keefe article particularly interesting. "REA attorney Barry Kozyra had argued that the case should be dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired and that the auction house expressly disclaimed any warranties." Leaving aside the legal merit (or not) of this defense, what do people think of an auction house disclaiming any warranty of authenticity as to items it sells, as a business practice? (While REA is the auction house relying on a disclaimer in this case, my question is a more general one.) On the one hand, I can understand that it would be impossible for an auction house to verify the authenticity of items, particularly memorabilia. On the other hand, is caveat emptor appropriate where presumably most items are described in a fashion suggesting they are authentic, and where presumably the willingness of bidders to bid, and the hammer price, reflect at least in part that the auction house has apparently put its imprimatur on the item? I don't know the answer, but find this a very interesting aspect of this lawsuit, as it likely has implications beyond its four corners. Incidentally, what the ruling means is that the court found that the plaintiff (Corey) alleged enough facts in his complaint to proceed with his lawsuit. It should be emphasized that this is a preliminary ruling and not a ruling on the merits. Assuming the case follows the usual trajectory, the next phase will be discovery, in which the parties exchange documents and witnesses (including nonparties) are deposed. |
Well stated Peter. I'll only add that this doesn't seem to help Mr. Nash's credibility either.
|
It was brought to my attention that my previous post incorrectly stated that the disclaimer of warranty at issue in the case was that of Mastro, when in fact it was that of REA. My bad. I have corrected my post.
|
Quote:
|
We're not all outdoorsmen like you and Steve Carlton, Scott, and these things have to be pointed our for the rest of us. Growing up in the city, I always thought the tin can was the tuna's skin.
|
7 Attachment(s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After 7 years, this case recently went to trial, and the jury reached a verdict several days ago. I was able to download in PDF form the verdict sheet and the jury communication regarding punitive damages from PACER, but you would need a PACER ID to see them. If I can figure out a way to post the PDFs in full, I will. In the meantime, this is what happened, based on my review of the publicly-accessible record which of course is all I know. While there were several counts in Mr. Shanus' Amended Complaint, the only one that went to trial was Count II, which charged Mr. Lifson and REA (Robert Edward Auctions, LLC, which subsequently changed its name to R.L. Americana, LLC) with fraud, and specifically, with "engag[ing] in a systematic scheme of misrepresenting and reporting sales with the intent of artificially inflating the auction prices of items being offered for sale." The Amended Complaint alleges as examples of such items the "Origins of Baseball Letter" and the "Fashion Course Trophy Ball," and alleges that the purchase prices of these items in REA's auction were "false and fraudulent." Those two items, and no others, are mentioned in the verdict sheet. The jury answered a series of questions tracking the elements of fraud, separately against each defendant. It answered all questions in the affirmative. The jury awarded no damages against the REA entity, and $55,100 against Mr. Lifson. The jury also awarded punitive damages against Mr. Lifson of $52,900. A couple of notes: 1. This has nothing to do with Bryan Dwyer. 2. This is a civil case and there may, of course, be post-trial motions and/or an appeal. 3. I don't know the evidentiary basis for the jury's findings. Beyond the pleading stage, most of the significant filings and even the court's summary judgment opinion were not publicly-accessible through PACER, which was frustrating to me as I tried to follow the case over the years. And the transcripts of the trial, though referenced in the PACER docket, are not publicly-accessible at this time. __________________ |
Interesting. Case certainly dragged long enough. Wonder what the reason for the name change was?
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Interesting. Case certainly dragged long enough. Wonder what the reason for the name change was? """ Probably having to do with Brian taking over REA. Since Brian bought REA he is using that name while R.L. is Rob's initials. My instinct, for the three cents it is worth tell me that change is not nefarious in any way Rich |
Can we surmise that " systematic scheme" means there are far more problems that those in Mr Shanus' complaint? Or no?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Best wishes to all, Larry |
Initially speaking
REA includes Lifson’s first and middle initial. RL Americana includes his first and last initial. Hopefully this info is REL. (relevant). |
I just read this entire thing, start to finish. All I can say is, I'm so glad I didn't go into law. Studying legal history in college is one thing. I thoroughly enjoyed the hundreds of hours I spent researching precedent cases in Lexisnexis and Westlaw. And every single element of mock trial fascinated me. But the actual practice of law in the real world is so very different than the young idealist in me could have ever anticipated. Jeff, Larry et all, I don't know where you guys find the patience your chosen profession requires. Chapeau.
To briefly touch on the point that was discussed earlier, comparing the amount of corruption prevalent in our hobby to that within the legal and financial realms-there's really no comparison to be made, at all. There are going to be those who engage in nefarious activity in any large group of people. It's unavoidable. Money attracts the unscrupulous. But speaking as one who worked in the investments industry, and is familiar with the oversight and safeguards in place, the kind of underhanded behavior that runs rampant in our hobby could never exist there. Not on that scale. |
Silence in response to a jury verdict for fraud and award of punitive damages is nearly deafening. Had same thing happened to Probstein we’d be at outraged and or gleeful post 625 by now. Jury verdict seems to be given back of hand by even attorneys on the board who champion rooting out fraud in the industry. Odd to say the least.
|
I’ve had friends in the financial world who have been cited for serious securities infractions and have carried it around their neck like an albatross for years. They haven’t simply walked down the street and gotten another job doing the same thing. They have continued their careers but believe me the leading brokerage houses were not rolling out the red carpet to offer them another position.
QUOTE=the 'stache;1775566]I just read this entire thing, start to finish. All I can say is, I'm so glad I didn't go into law. Studying legal history in college is one thing. I thoroughly enjoyed the hundreds of hours I spent researching precedent cases in Lexisnexis and Westlaw. And every single element of mock trial fascinated me. But the actual practice of law in the real world is so very different than the young idealist in me could have ever anticipated. Jeff, Larry et all, I don't know where you guys find the patience your chosen profession requires. Chapeau. To briefly touch on the point that was discussed earlier, comparing the amount of corruption prevalent in our hobby to that within the legal and financial realms-there's really no comparison to be made, at all. There are going to be those who engage in nefarious activity in any large group of people. It's unavoidable. Money attracts the unscrupulous. But speaking as one who worked in the investments industry, and is familiar with the oversight and safeguards in place, the kind of underhanded behavior that runs rampant in our hobby could never exist there. Not on that scale.[/QUOTE] |
Quote:
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA (which used to be called the NASD) tracks every single registered representative within the industry, and continues to provide information on these representatives even after they are no longer a part of the industry. Case in point, here's my profile on FINRA's Broker Check. Even though it's been more than eight years since I was forced to leave the industry when I went on disability, everything I did as a registered representative is still available to the public. The licenses I held, and when they were passed, the firm I worked at, and the exact period of time that I was licensed. If any kind of regulatory actions had been brought against me, or if I had been terminated for cause-that information would be there. If you screw up, the black mark on your record, as far as I know, never goes away. |
Quote:
|
To be accurate, the Amended Complaint which is public had three counts.
|
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=calvindog;1775580]Relatively tiny jury verdict in response to a massive lawsuit with numerous counts dismissed, Rob has a great reputation in the field and this is an isolated act, jury verdicts do not necessarily equate to truth as learned by people who actually try cases for a living and don't just talk
I will definitely use the “relatively tiny jury verdict in response to a massive lawsuit” language in a press release next time one of my clients gets whacked. Useful. Thanks. |
[QUOTE=Snapolit1;1775594]
Quote:
Quote:
A reasonable estimation of legal fees for both parties, if known, would lend credence to the characterization of a “reasonably tiny jury verdict” as an accurate assessment of the result.;) |
[QUOTE=Snapolit1;1775594]
Quote:
|
Quote:
Mark Medlin. |
I just spoke to Leon about this. Yes, Rob was found responsible by a civil jury on the one surviving claim of Corey's. Yes that's bad. But spending seven figures in seven years to make 100K just can't feel like a win to me. The lawyers -- who I both know and are good guys and better lawyers -- won here.
|
Quote:
To answer my own question, I am sure you all do, but that aside, I am glad, despite the resistance, name calling, unfavorable reviews, etc, you still soldier on in the name of justice. Thank you! :) |
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=calvindog;1775616]
Quote:
:eek::D |
I’m out hustling ... one day at a time.
|
Quote:
I didn’t defend or assess issue with the opinions regarding the op. My statement was merely addressing the responding posters statement about the “cleanliness” of the investment industry. IMO, anytime there is money at stake someone will be trying to angle the system. Mark Medlin |
I believe this is the "Fashion Course Trophy Ball."
http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...ophy-baseball/ And this the "Origins of Baseball Letter." http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...ll-collection/ |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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 :) Quote:
|
Quote:
Mark Medlin |
|
Quote:
Quote:
:rolleyes: Quote:
Here's part of my first post: Quote:
Quote:
"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? |
Quote:
What other forms of recourse are there besides civil court? Can an auction house and a complainant enter into binding arbitration? |
We sure seem to have strayed from the jury verdict, if we ever were there at all.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:58 AM. |