New lawsuit accuses PWCC of massive shill bidding

[BobbyVCP]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Then why?

It is because PWCC started their own auction site that was suppose to be high end only and eBay deemed it as competition...besides the fact that eBay offered to buy PWCC in the area of $200M in stock and it was turned down by Brent...

So because of those issues eBay threw them under the bus and PWCC scrambled to do all their auctions in weekly auction format.

And it would still be owned by Brent for the one little screw up on his part to loan money for card assets in his vault that was mostly basketball and crashing in value...

Then with the shit hitting the fan 2 summers ago he got Fanatics to bail him out and assume all his debt, etc

[Peter_Spaeth]

I presume Alt is getting its information from one or more former employees. It would be very interesting to know how much they really know, how credible they are, whether they have any documentation corroborating their claims, and so forth. One has to assume a reputable lawyer had a good faith basis to bring the claim, but that's a far cry from being able to prove it with credible witnesses and admissible evidence. It also will be interesting how many records Fanatics retained when it took over PWCC.

PS the FBI investigation is irrelevant. This is now a private civil dispute and the issue is, assuming no legal defects that would result in dismissal of the claim, the plaintiff can prove its case.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyVCP

It is because PWCC started their own auction site that was suppose to be high end only and eBay deemed it as competition...besides the fact that eBay offered to buy PWCC in the area of $200M in stock and it was turned down by Brent...

So because of those issues eBay threw them under the bus and PWCC scrambled to do all their auctions in weekly auction format.

And it would still be owned by Brent for the one little screw up on his part to loan money for card assets in his vault that was mostly basketball and crashing in value...

Then with the shit hitting the fan 2 summers ago he got Fanatics to bail him out and assume all his debt, etc

So, he went from turning down a $200,000,000 offer to giving it up in lieu of getting bailed out.

One little screw up, indeed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Isn't this a civil case instead of criminal? Isn't it easier to get a favorable judgement in a civil case?

Fraud is subject to a higher standard than the usual civil standard of more likely than not -- typically clear and convincing evidence. But the standard likely won't play that much of a role. Not sure about the second count, I am not familiar with that cause of action.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So, he went from turning down a $200,000,000 offer to giving it up in lieu of getting bailed out.

One little screw up, indeed.

That is the word on the street, except the street where Travis lives lol.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by raulus

Favorite passage so far:

The frequency with which other bidders matched or closely approached Alt’s maximum bids was especially unlikely in legitimate auctions because, during that time period, Alt had idiosyncratic incentives to acquire inventory to jump start its own marketplace, which led Alt to submit maximum bids that it considered abnormally high.

Translation:

We were doing stupid stuff and bidding like drunken sailors because we had our own monetary reasons for wanting to rip other people off ourselves. The fact that we weren't winning everything hands down with our stupid bids is a clear sign that the fix was in!

Precisely!

Originally Posted by jayshum

Isn't this a civil case instead of criminal?

Which is why I think this should be a criminal case or no case at all. I can't sympathize with the idiots at Alt, but shill bidding is a criminal offense. So that's the way it should be tried.

[Johnny630]

The money was made on the undercards in lower grades… many of
those I believe were real sales…people got dupes. Guys loved it…it gave many the perception that their collection was worth way more than they had ever imagined….the illusion put the hobby to new levels.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobbyVCP

It is because PWCC started their own auction site that was suppose to be high end only and eBay deemed it as competition...besides the fact that eBay offered to buy PWCC in the area of $200M in stock and it was turned down by Brent...

So because of those issues eBay threw them under the bus and PWCC scrambled to do all their auctions in weekly auction format.

And it would still be owned by Brent for the one little screw up on his part to loan money for card assets in his vault that was mostly basketball and crashing in value...

Then with the shit hitting the fan 2 summers ago he got Fanatics to bail him out and assume all his debt, etc

Bobby do you know this to be true or are you assuming this was the real reason? Not meant as cross exam, just curious.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Precisely!



Which is why I think this should be a criminal case or no case at all. I can't sympathize with the idiots at Alt, but shill bidding is a criminal offense. So that's the way it should be tried.

Lots of crimes can also be the basis for private civil fraud or other causes of action, I don't follow your logic. Two completely separate animals.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Two completely separate animals.

Yes, but I don't think that should be the case. I don't like this business of civil liability if there's no criminal conviction. I don't like it at all. It's opened the door for all kinds of abuses, all kinds of shysters, all kinds of legal shenanigans.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Yes, but I don't think that should be the case. I don't like this business of civil liability if there's no criminal conviction. I don't like it at all. It's opened the door for all kinds of abuses, all kinds of shysters, all kinds of legal shenanigans.

So if I get defrauded I can't sue the fraudster if they have not been criminally convicted? If my company goes under because my monopolist competitor drives me out with predatory pricing or other abusive anticompetitive behavior, I can't sue them unless the government has prosecuted and convicted them? I could give countless examples of how crazy this regime would be. If a public company massively overstates its revenues and millions of dollars of losses ensure when the truth comes out, are investors out of luck if the government doesn't bring criminal charges? Do you realize what a tiny percentage of potentially criminal acts get prosecuted?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if I get defrauded I can't sue the fraudster if they have not been criminally convicted? If my company goes under because my monopolist competitor drives me out with predatory pricing or other abusive anticompetitive behavior, I can't sue them unless the government has prosecuted and convicted them? I could give countless examples of how crazy this regime would be. If a public company massively overstates its revenues and millions of dollars of losses ensure when the truth comes out, are investors out of luck if the government doesn't bring criminal charges? Do you realize what a tiny percentage of potentially criminal acts get prosecuted?

You could've summed it up more concisely: O.J Simpson.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You could've summed it up more concisely: O.J Simpson.

Actually I think we had that very discussion, with Baltic taking the position OJ was actually innocent because he had not been convicted.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if I get defrauded I can't sue the fraudster if they have not been criminally convicted? If my company goes under because my monopolist competitor drives me out with predatory pricing or other abusive anticompetitive behavior, I can't sue them unless the government has prosecuted and convicted them? I could give countless examples of how crazy this regime would be. If a public company massively overstates its revenues and millions of dollars of losses ensure when the truth comes out, are investors out of luck if the government doesn't bring criminal charges? Do you realize what a tiny percentage of potentially criminal acts get prosecuted?

Well I for one am bloody sick and tired of paying ever higher insurance premiums to finance outrageous jury awards and the mansions of the shysters who filed the suits!

Originally Posted by Mark17

You could've summed it up more concisely: O.J Simpson.

INNOCENT! Case closed.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Actually I think we had that very discussion, with Baltic taking the position OJ was actually innocent because he had not been convicted.

You fascist son-of-a-bitch! What the hell is it about INNOCENT until and unless convicted in a court of law that you either don't understand - or simply don't like? It's not only the cornerstone of our legal system but is a fundamental bulwark against the overarching power of the State. Without that fundamental bulwark any and all of us could and would be put away simply because we hold "inconvenient" political views. See the Soviet Union. My own uncle was taken to Siberia where he perished.

Any lawyer who doesn't embrace the principal of INNOCENT until proven guilty wholeheartedly without any ifs, ands or buts should be disbarred immediately.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think there was certainly a point where the brand was strong enough that it would have done fine had Brent gone straight. And much of that growth was, to be fair, due to his creativity and hard work and vision.

The assets were decent, the brand was a POS. Fanatics tried to wash the dog crap stench off the PWCC sneaker but ended up having to throw it away and rename because the filth had been ground too far into the treads.

I don't know "Alt" from "Shift" or "Command" but it sounds like Alt is a bunch of speculators who got caught with their pants down when ultramodern tanked and are looking for someone to blame for it.

Oh, and Baltic Fox, you're not even subject to our legal system; stop being a troll. Happily adding you to my "ignore" list.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You could've summed it up more concisely: O.J Simpson.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

"Presented without comment"- except for the FIVE comments after it. Some
people just can't help themselves...

Trent King

net54- the place where some people think that verbosity equates to quality

Originally Posted by Snowman

Lol. Good luck with that, Alt. Idiots gonna idiot.

Anyone want to place a side bet on how this one turns out? Zero chance of Alt winning is my position.

Originally Posted by BobbyVCP

He did a few bad things but also did a lot of good as well...

Originally Posted by Balticfox

You fascist son-of-a-bitch! What the hell is it about INNOCENT until and unless convicted in a court of law that you either don't understand - or simply don't like? It's not only the cornerstone of our legal system but is a fundamental bulwark against the overarching power of the State. Without that fundamental bulwark any and all of us could and would be put away simply because we hold "inconvenient" political views. See the Soviet Union. My own uncle was taken to Siberia where he perished.

Any lawyer who doesn't embrace the principal of INNOCENT until proven guilty wholeheartedly without any ifs, ands or buts should be disbarred immediately.

This thread is going to be a gold mine of intelligent, reasoned takes. We're barely to page 2!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Well I for one am bloody sick and tired of paying ever higher insurance premiums to finance outrageous jury awards and the mansions of the shysters who filed the suits!



INNOCENT! Case closed.



You fascist son-of-a-bitch! What the hell is it about INNOCENT until and unless convicted in a court of law that you either don't understand - or simply don't like? It's not only the cornerstone of our legal system but is a fundamental bulwark against the overarching power of the State. Without that fundamental bulwark any and all of us could and would be put away simply because we hold "inconvenient" political views. See the Soviet Union. My own uncle was taken to Siberia where he perished.

Any lawyer who doesn't embrace the principal of INNOCENT until proven guilty wholeheartedly without any ifs, ands or buts should be disbarred immediately.

SMH. I may change my signature line to fascist son of a bitch, it has a nice ring to it. I may drop the hyphens though. You are, as you were in the other thread, completely mischaracterizing and taking on a straw man. I absolutely believe in the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. Again, there is a difference between legal innocence and moral innocence.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

You fascist son-of-a-bitch! What the hell is it about INNOCENT until and unless convicted in a court of law that you either don't understand - or simply don't like?

[Mark visualizes Baltic Fox screaming these words at Commissioner Landis after he banned confessed (but declared not guilty in court) conspirators Cicotte, Williams, et al, for throwing games for money.]

[tjisonline]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I don't know "Alt" from "Shift" or "Command" but it sounds like Alt is a bunch of speculators who got caught with their pants down when ultramodern tanked and are looking for someone to blame for it.

Bingo. ALT is the Fredo of marketplaces.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

SMH. I may change my signature line to fascist son of a bitch, it has a nice ring to it. I may drop the hyphens though. You are, as you were in the other thread, completely mischaracterizing and taking on a straw man. I absolutely believe in the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. Again, there is a difference between legal innocence and moral innocence.

Isn't there also a difference between being innocent and being found not guilty in a trial?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Isn't there also a difference between being innocent and being found not guilty in a trial?

That's my point. You may not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt even though you actually committed the crime. The system is imperfect. And of course occasionally people who did not commit the crime are found guilty.

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by raulus

And I guess a willingness to cross a lot of red lines. If the allegations are true, then there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of a moral compass in play.

Allow me to introduce you to American capitalism. You must be new here.

[jingram058]

Without any theatrics or drama, may I ask a simple question? I know some of you are lawyers. Whatever happened to double jeopardy? If you are found guilty or not guilty, should that not be the end of it? When did it become acceptable to have a criminal AND a civil trial? Has that always been the case? First time I saw this was with OJ.

[jayshum]

Not a lawyer, but from Wikipedia, it appears that double jeopardy is in the Constitution and only applies to criminal trial:

In the United States, the protection in common law against double jeopardy is maintained through the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides:

... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Lol. Good luck with that, Alt. Idiots gonna idiot.

Anyone want to place a side bet on how this one turns out? Zero chance of Alt winning is my position.

Maybe interested. What odds are you offering?

[Section103]

There are few things in life I can count on, but a legal discussion on Net54 ~always~ has that "je ne sais quoi" quality.

9:22 is too early to start drinking bourbon and Im mad as hell about it.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Oh, and Baltic Fox, you're not even subject to our legal system; stop being a troll.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed that the posters most likely to label others that way are the ones who best fit the definition.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Happily adding you to my "ignore" list.

Good! Perhaps now you'll have more time to actually contribute to this board. You know, with threads/posts such as these:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...hlight=Savelli

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ght=Etcheverry

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...hlight=Savelli

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I may change my signature line to fascist son of a bitch, it has a nice ring to it. I may drop the hyphens though.

Talk's cheap. I'm waiting. You may perhaps have noticed that I've already changed my own.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You are, as you were in the other thread, completely mischaracterizing and taking on a straw man. I absolutely believe in the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. Again, there is a difference between legal innocence and moral innocence.

Originally Posted by jayshum

Isn't there also a difference between being innocent and being found not guilty in a trial?

I'll leave moral judgements to the clergy. My specific interest is the protection of the individual (including myself of course) from malicious prosecution by the State.

I can't believe that you and so many others absolutely fail to understand that if O.J. Simpson could be convicted on the basis of the evidence presented at his trial (which basically consisted of "Well he must have done it!"), then any of us is in jeopardy of being convicted for any murder anywhere! And that's something I find really chilling. I much rather prefer the presumption of innocence, case closed.

It doesn't take much grey matter to understand that underlying principle but somehow when it comes to O.J. Simpson all too many observers/commentators just stop thinking. Let me repeat, if any man can be convicted without strong evidence presented in an impartial court of law, then tomorrow that man may be you! There have already been far too many examples of wrongful convictions over the years. The presumption of innocence is a principle that must never be undermined, and loose talk does precisely that.

I for one am dedicated to my inalienable rights as an individual (regardless of jurisdiction). I see whoever would erode those rights as an implacable enemy.



P.S. Keep in mind that I wasn't the one who introduced O.J. Simpson into this discussion.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Without any theatrics or drama, may I ask a simple question? I know some of you are lawyers. Whatever happened to double jeopardy? If you are found guilty or not guilty, should that not be the end of it? When did it become acceptable to have a criminal AND a civil trial? Has that always been the case? First time I saw this was with OJ.

There is no double jeopardy posed by having to face both a criminal and civil trial-- never has been. One can deprive of you of your liberty and the other of your property. As the former is far more serious, it requires the higher burden of proof-- beyond a reasonable doubt. Note that the jury is not instructed on "innocence", but is instead asked to find a defendant either guilty or not guilty. That is not just a question of semantics, and the difference is intentional.

You also can be tried for the same crime in multiple jurisdictions--technically not the same statute being violated but the same underlying actions comprising a violation of law in two different sovereigns, e.g., both state and federal law. I would defer to the criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors on the board to expound on this if anyone is interested.

It hasn't happened a lot, but now and then in my practice I have a civil case where the defendant was also charged with a crime arising out of the same event. Picture a drunk driving case causing injury, for example. If the defendant is convicted, the plaintiff in the civil case is pretty much home free, since there was a finding that defendant did it beyond a reasonable doubt. If he is found not guilty, the civil client/victim can still proceed because he only needs to show the defendant more likely than not was acting in a culpable manner. Plaintiff still needs to prove his case, but he is not precluded by some argument of double jeopardy because that defense would be inapplicable.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

There is no double jeopardy posed by having to face both a criminal and civil trial-- never has been. One can deprive of you of your liberty and the other of your property. As the former is far more serious, it requires the higher burden of proof-- beyond a reasonable doubt. Note that the jury is not instructed on "innocence", but is instead asked to find a defendant either guilty or not guilty. That is not just a question of semantics, and the difference is intentional.

You also can be tried for the same crime in multiple jurisdictions--technically not the same statute being violated but the same underlying actions comprising a violation of law in two different sovereigns, e.g., both state and federal law. I would defer to the criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors on the board to expound on this if anyone is interested.

It hasn't happened a lot, but now and then in my practice I have a civil case where the defendant was also charged with a crime arising out of the same event. Picture a drunk driving case causing injury, for example. If the defendant is convicted, the plaintiff in the civil case is pretty much home free, since there was a finding that defendant did it beyond a reasonable doubt. If he is found not guilty, the civil client/victim can still proceed because he only needs to show the defendant more likely than not was acting in a culpable manner. Plaintiff still needs to prove his case, but he is not precluded by some argument of double jeopardy because that defense would be inapplicable.

Thank you, sir. I see the difference with your explanation.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Section103

There are few things in life I can count on, but a legal discussion on Net54 ~always~ has that "je ne sais quoi" quality.

9:22 is too early to start drinking bourbon and Im mad as hell about it.

How about 9:23?

[raulus]

Maybe to tie some of these disparate discussions together a little bit, it seems like there have long been allegations against PWCC for various bad acts. Everything from consorting with/facilitating card doctors to shill bidding. While there were some prior investigations that appear to have fizzled out, to my knowledge, nothing has been proven in court, although some among us seem pretty convinced of PWCC's guilt on some of these counts, with a few of us being full-throated defenders of PWCC. Not sure I fully follow the reasons for this strong defense from Snowman and BobbyVCP, except that they seem to be more focused on extolling the virtues of the legitimate aspects of PWCC's business.

Certainly I have nothing personally to go on in terms of PWCC's guilt, although the chorus of allegations and a lot of the details provided in other threads is definitely troubling, to the point where it's not hard to imagine that at least some of the allegations could be true. But to BalticFox's point, PWCC has the right to presumed innocence, and at the moment the claims in this suit don't have much support introduced into the record, although that could change as the process unfolds.

Just like Peter, I am eager to see what evidence is presented in connection with the case. With any luck, it will help to shed a little more light on what was happening at PWCC. Hopefully any sources and testimony provided will be high quality, rather than mere conjecture or innuendo. And hopefully we're not just left to keep guessing if it gets settled before any additional evidence can be introduced.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I don't know "Alt" from "Shift" or "Command" but it sounds like Alt is a bunch of speculators who got caught with their pants down when ultramodern tanked and are looking for someone to blame for it.

Let's say that card prices kept going up and Alt made some nice profit over the past few years. If some ex-pwcc employee told them about the "buyer's group" and what they were doing, then do you think that Alt would've just let the whole thing slide ?? I doubt it.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by raulus

Dammit, if you proclaim to not have a comment, then you are disbarred from commenting in perpetuity. Get it straight, man!

I guess we could argue that there should at least be a minimum moratorium on commenting after presenting without comment. But maybe we need some site guidelines on the statute of limitations for anyone who declines to comment.

Or maybe you just need to reserve the right to comment in a later post, which may or may not follow within a timeframe at your discretion?

Can we at least acknowledge that it’s mildly amusing to see the presented without comment bit when we know there will be several comments to follow?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Can we at least acknowledge that it’s mildly amusing to see the presented without comment bit when we know there will be several comments to follow?

It is, I grant you, mildly amusing

But I suppose we must grant that chat boards are prone to such.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

But I didn't see them as comments. "Presented without comment," to me, means without any opinions. His subsequent posts were merely additional information, not "comments" in the sense it was intended.

[edhans]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

But I didn't see them as comments. "Presented without comment," to me, means without any opinions. His subsequent posts were merely additional information, not "comments" in the sense it was intended.

+1.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

But I didn't see them as comments. "Presented without comment," to me, means without any opinions. His subsequent posts were merely additional information, not "comments" in the sense it was intended.

I should make a comment with regard to your comment pertaining to Peter's comment, which was presented without comment and then followed up by comments that weren't really comments.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Eric72

I should make a comment with regard to your comment pertaining to Peter's comment, which was presented without comment and then followed up by comments that weren't really comments.

I appreciate the additional information you offer here, particularly since it is done without any commentary.

[judsonhamlin]

Please commit to more commas in your commentary, you commie.

[Exhibitman]

The directors of the firm hired to continue the credits after the other people had been sacked, wish it to be known that they have just been sacked.

[judsonhamlin]

A møøse bit my sister once

[Exhibitman]

On second thought, let us not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.

[frankbmd]

.............................................. without comment

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Their damages analysis is creative but speculative, and not likely to carry the day. They assert that they lost $4.5M from the cards they won in PWCC auctions, then allege that PWCC's conduct artificially and wrongfully inflated values throughout the hobby by over 40%, such that cards they won in other auctions were overpaid by another $9.2M. That's how they get to $13.7M. See paragraphs 48-51. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Part of that is their claim (no comment on the merits) that PWCC's activities artificially inflated the entire market. The same claim that many made with regard to Mastro, so it's nothing new.

Thank you both. Appreciate the explanation.

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Their damages analysis is creative but speculative, and not likely to carry the day. They assert that they lost $4.5M from the cards they won in PWCC auctions, then allege that PWCC's conduct artificially and wrongfully inflated values throughout the hobby by over 40%, such that cards they won in other auctions were overpaid by another $9.2M. That's how they get to $13.7M. See paragraphs 48-51. Good luck with that.

(Aside for the non-lawyers here: In the legal community, “creative” is a term of art meaning “absolute bullshit.”)

[tlhss]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

On second thought, let us not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.

Outstanding! Best post in this thread.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

It hasn't happened a lot, but now and then in my practice I have a civil case where the defendant was also charged with a crime arising out of the same event.....If he is found not guilty, the civil client/victim can still proceed because he only needs to show the defendant more likely than not was acting in a culpable manner. Plaintiff still needs to prove his case, but he is not precluded by some argument of double jeopardy because that defense would be inapplicable.

The OJ case is a famous example.

[Balticfox]

That word would be "infamous".