Kevin Keating responds to shill bidding allegations

[Spahn21]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Kevin,

You say you did not know about the COC rule until last week. Who informed you of the COC rule, the government? And if the government knew about the COC rule and that you did no wrong, why did they include your name on the list in the first place?

Hi David (I presume?)--

Thanks for your question.

In short, yes, the government told us last week about the code of conduct (COC) and the fact that the inclusion of the 38 lots with my name was the result of Mastro-Legendary's violation of its COC, paragraph 2--which Mastro-Legendary was obligated to enforce. Had they enforced that rule, then my bids should have been prohibited; and had my bids been prohibited, then the end result, i.e., end sale price would not have been as high as it was for those lots (same impact as a shill bid) -- and so, for purposes of determining "loss values", which I am told was the purpose of Exhibit E, the end result -- a higher price to the buyer -- is the same whether the bid is shilled or a prohibited bid (like mine). But, 1) owing to the purpose of Exhibit E -- to assess the monetary damages to lot winners/buyers -- and 2) the fact that the document was intended for internal use only for the court (and not to be released), no distinction was made on the list between shill bids and bids like mine -- or at least the bids I made on those 38 lots which M-L should have prohibited ( I can't speak to bids assigned to others).

It is my understanding that document EE is now redacted, but I'm not positive on that.

Also, I did just issue a more lengthy post which I believe also answers your above questions and in more detail, too. But if not, or if you have others, please pass them on and I'll do my best to answer them.

Thanks, David--Kevin K.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Spahn21

Hi David (I presume?)--

Thanks for your question.

In short, yes, the government told us last week about the code of conduct (COC) and the fact that the inclusion of the 38 lots with my name was the result of Mastro-Legendary's violation of its COC, paragraph 2--which Mastro-Legendary was obligated to enforce. Had they enforced that rule, then my bids should have been prohibited; and had my bids been prohibited, then the end result, i.e., end sale price would not have been as high as it was for those lots (same impact as a shill bid) -- and so, for purposes of determining "loss values", which I am told was the purpose of Exhibit E, the end result -- a higher price to the buyer -- is the same whether the bid is shilled or a prohibited bid (like mine). But, 1) owing to the purpose of Exhibit E -- to assess the monetary damages to lot winners/buyers -- and 2) the fact that the document was intended for internal use only for the court (and not to be released), no distinction was made on the list between shill bids and bids like mine -- or at least the bids I made on those 38 lots which M-L should have prohibited ( I can't speak to bids assigned to others).

It is my understanding that document EE is now redacted, but I'm not positive on that.

Also, I did just issue a more lengthy post which I believe also answers your above questions and in more detail, too. But if not, or if you have others, please pass them on and I'll do my best to answer them.

Thanks, David--Kevin K.

Kevin,

Thank you for the explanation. For what it's worth, I believe you. However, I don't think Hank's statement lent any credibility to your opening post for 2 reasons (1) the timing of his response and (2) that he prefaced his statement with "Kevin...doesn't need, nor has he requested, any support from me." Although he didn't say it, that sort of implies that you didn't know he was going to make his statement when actually the two of you collaborated together on it. Had Hank not posted, I never would have questioned your OP, but when Hank's (obviously prepared) statement immediately followed yours, it sure looks suspicious. Your statement could have stood on it's own without any help. Again, all that said, I do believe you and thank you again for coming on here and telling your side - it's a lot more than some people have done.

Regards,

David

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Kevin,

Thank you for the explanation. For what it's worth, I believe you. However, I don't think Hank's statement lent any credibility to your opening post for 2 reasons (1) the timing of his response and (2) that he prefaced his statement with "Kevin...doesn't need, nor has he requested, any support from me." Although he didn't say it, that sort of implies that you didn't know he was going to make his statement when actually the two of you collaborated together on it. Had Hank not posted, I never would have questioned your OP, but when Hank's (obviously prepared) statement immediately followed yours, it sure looks suspicious. Your statement could have stood on it's own without any help. Again, all that said, I do believe you and thank you again for coming on here and telling your side - it's a lot more than some people have done.

Regards,

David

How could my post look suspicious to you when everything was laid out in it, including up front my very close relationship with Kevin? His reputation had been tarnished, and I wanted to vouch for him, simple as that. According to your way of thinking, it would have been less suspicious had I waited seven posts into the thread before coming in? That's exactly why I DIDN'T do that. And there was no "collaboration" on my statement, as you put it. Kevin never asked for it, nor did he ask for any changes to be made. I showed it to him primarily to get his input on my breakdown of the list into different categories of offense, not in any way to get his approval of my comments about him. "Kevin...doesn't need, nor has he requested, any support from me" is the truth, nothing more or less complicated than that.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Hank, I certainly didn't mean that as a personal attack on you. Simply put, the truth can stand on it's own - it doesn't need confirmation.

I understand why you did it, he's your buddy. The timing of your post just looked suspicious as it was a prepared statement.

[h2oya311]

Kevin -

Thanks for coming forward with a logical explanation for your inclusion on "the list". Any other COC Paragraph 2 "offenders", please feel free to jump in now that Kevin has paved the way...perhaps Kevin's situation is unique, but there are still many on the list that have remained silent.

Kudos to Kevin and his lawyer for good detective work. I hope you are able to get something in writing from the U.S. Attorney's Office to make your defense iron-clad.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

..., but there are still many on the list that have remained silent.

Thankfully that is true.

You might have more fun by judging each one of them individually in their own thread.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Hank, I certainly didn't mean that as a personal attack on you. Simply put, the truth can stand on it's own - it doesn't need confirmation.

I understand why you did it, he's your buddy. The timing of your post just looked suspicious as it was a prepared statement.

It did not look suspicious to me since he had posted that more info was coming soon in the other thread. I just assumed he had it ready to go and was waiting for the right time to release it.

[whitehse]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Hank, I certainly didn't mean that as a personal attack on you. Simply put, the truth can stand on it's own - it doesn't need confirmation.

I understand why you did it, he's your buddy. The timing of your post just looked suspicious as it was a prepared statement.

When I saw Hank's response my mind went back to his cryptic message on the "other" thread about more information to come and assumed he was finally saying what he knew to be true but could not do so before. I never gave one single thought as to how quickly he posted because I just assumed he had that all pre-written anyway which was no big deal.

I, for one am happy he posted because I would have been left hanging wondering what this additional information he indicated would be coming out of this mess really was.

[Spahn21]

Hi David,

Thank you for your candor and for allowing me the opportunity to address your concern—I have not spoken with Hank today but I see that he has posted a response to you already…and just to be clear, I never asked Hank to write a statement on my behalf. In fact, I have refrained from asking anyone (unless you included my lawyer) to intervene on my behalf – either here on Net 54 or anywhere else -- including Hank.

I have had dozens of people contact me over the past many days to offer themselves as character witnesses, but as I have stated before, I want the facts to speak for themselves. I realize the truth of what happened to me may not be enough to satisfy everyone but I remain confident that fair-minded people who take the time to read through the story and its convolutions will conclude that I did nothing wrong—Kevin K.

[Spahn21]

Bill,

Thank you for your suggestion. It may interest you to know that my lawyer also released my statement yesterday to Michael O’Keefe of the New York Daily News and I believe he has already published it there (online, I think).

I understand that O’Keefe is also reporting that Exhibit E has now been "redacted", but not sure what that means, at this point....

--Kevin K.

[bcawly]

I sent the following email to Kevin Keating on February 9 after a review of Exhibit E and his response to the matter. Exhibit E standing alone does not disclose how the government's investigation confirmed collusion among specific parties to shill bid, it does clearly show the conflicted inter-party transactions that exist between the auction houses and those that do business with them.

There is the need for more transparent and verifiable auction practices and controls to detect and prevent shill bidding along the line I presented in my email to Kevin Keating that follows. It is my opinion, that there is a clear need for the major auction firms to step up and address this issue to ensure the integrity of their business practices. I stand behind my comments to Mr. Keating.

Bob Cawly



Re: Mastro-Legendary Auction's Shill Bidding Report Response
From Robert H. Cawly
To qualityautographs qualityautographs@msn.com

Kevin

Just let me say that after reviewing Exhibit E, it appears to me that you were also a victim of the shill bidding and that your bidding patterns were customary with many dealers and collectors that desire to take an early position on a number of lots to hold a place in extended bidding. In any event, the infraction is one of RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS which make you ineligible to bid. The more appropriate classification would be "Bids by Ineligible Bidders" as opposed to calling them all shill bids.

While the effect is the same as placing a shill bid, the implications are completely different. All reputable auction houses should post a list of Related Parties and make known the Related Party Policies which would include auction house employees, and employees of subcontractors, authentication firms and other related companies.

The real issues reside with the business practices of the auction firms. It is up to the auction house to enforce its own rules, not the bidders. The prudent auction house would have each auction overseen by an well known and reputable independent accountant that would oversee the bidding process, and audit the auction records. This one step would clearly establish what auction firms are interested in restoring honesty and integrity to our hobby and care about their firm's credibility. The expense of such a process would clearly be affordable and a sound investment.

Knowing of your credentials and reputation for integrity from people in the industry and notably fellow UACC members, let me express my full confidence in your response in this matter.

Robert H Cawly, CPA
UACC RD326

[prewarsports]

Kevin is one of the first big guys in the hobby that treated me fairly and honestly when I was a young man getting started in the hobby. I would go to shows in my early 20's and other big dealers would not even bother to stop and show me a card in their cases, while Kevin was very personable and for that I have always respected him. Getting to know him more over the years and having numerous encounters with him, I always thought he was one of the more respectable people in the hobby. It is not surprising to me at all there is a rational explanation for his name being on the list. I am happy he was able to clear the air.

Rhys Yeakley

[jimjim]

Not to drag up an old thread, but I was just on Kevin's website and I was surprised on his prices. He is charging 2-3x the going rate for most items. Do people actually pay his prices? I know he is one of the best in the hobby, but am not going to pay a premium for living modern day players.