Latest development in Shanus v. REA

[nolemmings]

Dan, I believe the premise of the trade libel claim is 1) Corey knew that the reason the price had fallen on the sheetmusic was not because of any market forces or because of limited demand, but because the prior REA auction price was artificially high, made artificial by Corey's alleged shill bidding and 2) knowing the "real" reason the price had dropped substantially was because of his own (alleged) wrongdoing, Corey nonetheless intentionally suggested that the low price was attributed to REA's failure to set an adequate reserve. That is how I read it.

Although I too wonder about the damages elements of the claim and both the surrounding circumstances and litigation strategy, I find the other count of the counterclaim, which alleges that Corey engaged in shilling, to be interesting, shall we say.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Dan, I believe the premise of the trade libel claim is 1) Corey knew that the reason the price had fallen on the sheetmusic was not because of any market forces or because of limited demand, but because the prior REA auction price was artificially high, made artificial by Corey's alleged shill bidding and 2) knowing the "real" reason the price had dropped substantially was because of his own (alleged) wrongdoing, Corey nonetheless intentionally suggested that the low price was attributed to REA's failure to set an adequate reserve. That is how I read it.

Although I too wonder about the damages elements of the claim and both the surrounding circumstances and litigation strategy, I find the other count of the counterclaim, which alleges that Corey engaged in shilling, to be interesting, shall we say.

Take a look at the prior REA auction that was allegedly artificially high as a result of Corey's shill bidding.

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2004/1.html

In that 2004 auction, REA refers to a prior sale of the item for $25k. "We are aware of fewer than five known examples of The Live Oak Polka. This example was once one of the signature nineteenth-century pieces of the Halper Collection. It appeared in the famous 1999 Halper auction as Lot #3. It sold at that time for $25,300, and has been consigned to this sale directly from the purchaser at that landmark sale."

So Corey's observation that the 2010 sale price was low relative to past sales appears to me to be true even without reference to the 2004 price allegedly inflated by his own shill bidding, on the basis of statements made by REA itself.

[nolemmings]

Peter, I don't disagree. I was just trying to explain the gravamen (how long has it been since you used that word?) of the trade libel count as I understood it. As I said, I find the other count more interesting, although it has its own challenges IMO.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Todd, you have accurately characterized the libel claim according to my reading of the counterclaim, but my additional point is that in light of this information which is not mentioned in the counterclaim, Corey's view that the 2010 price was low in comparison to past sales appears to be true even without a comparison to the allegedly shilled auction.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Todd,

I too agree with your analysis. I was and still am hesitant to discuss REA's allegations about Corey's bidding activities since there are possible scenarios regarding agency and legitimate private sales that would make Corey an innocent party in all of this.

On a totally different aspect of this case, I've never sued someone for libel, but I'm well aware of someone who attempted to sue for libel and business disparagement. That person found out the hardest way imaginable that his life and his business suddenly went under the microscope and any "questionable" business activity, any incriminating written statements, business records, and any objectionable personal behavior suddenly became fair game for the court. Not only did this person not prevail, but fought furiously not let his case get to trial once a myriad of things were brought to light. Even with the case dismissed there is now a lot of very embarrassing and incriminating admissions and evidence are now a matter of public record. It could be very interesting how this all plays out. The old adage, "be careful what you ask for", may have never rang truer.

[nolemmings]

Dan you are right about the consequences of suing for libel/slander (i.e. defamation), and much of that applies to other legal theories where damages are alleged to be a decrease in business revenue. This is why I have said in other threads where defamation is threatened that it likely will never proceed--in Arizona at least it would be one of the hardest, most expensive, most potentially embarrassing actions to pursue. Also remember that at least in personal defamation cases truth is an absolute defense, and discovery will lead to a defendant pretty much looking under every rock--talking to all your associates, friends etc to show that what they are alleged to have said or written is in fact true. Add to that certain privileges or immunities that may apply in some scenarios, and you can see that bringing such an action is no walk in the park. Having said all that, I make no comment on New York and New Jersey trade libel or the specifics of what is in issue between Corey and REA.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

Even with the case dismissed there is now a lot of very embarrassing and incriminating admissions and evidence are now a matter of public record.

He couldn't just take a scissors to the record?