Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

No policy would say this, but after the theft happens and I call my insurance company they advise me to complete the auction then yes we're just another evil auction company who is going to continue the auction.

If they give me a choice and are going to pay me either way that would be entirely different.

Let’s use some common sense. When in all of history in any jurisdiction has an insurance company demanded a fake fraudulent auction be run in order to value a claim? This is not how it works. No real insurance company is going to do that. It’s ludicrous. If you want to defend lying to hundreds or thousands of customers to run a fake auction, get a more realistic reason to justify it.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

Let’s use some common sense. When in all of history in any jurisdiction has an insurance company demanded a fake fraudulent auction be run in order to value a claim? This is not how it works. No real insurance company is going to do that. It’s ludicrous. If you want to defend lying to hundreds or thousands of customers to run a fake auction, get a more realistic reason to justify it.

We're simply at an impasse at this idea. A number of people, including those closer to the situation than either of us have suggested insurance, counsel or even law enforcement influenced the decision to continue the auction.

"Running the auction, which I am sure was done at the advice of both counsel and insurance, to establish value is certainly the best path with the least damage given the crappy situation that’s nobody’s fault. There is no winning answer under these circumstances. It sucks, millions $$ of cards got stolen and ML is on the hook. No bueno all around"

If this was an independent decision made by ML with no outside influence than I disagree with that decision. That being said I simply can't imagine that being the case.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by G1911

Let’s use some common sense. When in all of history in any jurisdiction has an insurance company demanded a fake fraudulent auction be run in order to value a claim? This is not how it works. No real insurance company is going to do that. It’s ludicrous. If you want to defend lying to hundreds or thousands of customers to run a fake auction, get a more realistic reason to justify it.

I agree that it is unlikely the insurance company would demand or require the auction to run. That said, it IS required for the insured (ML) to provide substantiation of the value of the loss. The insurance company can look for alternative means of valuation and the process becomes a dispute/negotiation which in a best case scenario is settled and a worse case scenario is litigated. Given the rarity of at least some of the cards involved and the conflicting interests in low vs high valuation, there could be some big differences in perceived value between the insurance company and insured party (ML) not to mention the complicating consignor factor. Running the auction gives a pretty hard to argue value basis for all the cards involved.
I don't have a horse in the race, just believe I understand some of why things unfolded the way they did. Once the cards were stolen the only better and "easy" ending would have been for them to have been recovered prior to the end of the auction. When that possibility expired, there was no good way for things to end. Some group (consignors, bidders, ML) was not going to be happy. I do hope that more information is revealed once the case is closed and (hopefully) the cards recovered.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by hcv123

I agree that it is unlikely the insurance company would demand or require the auction to run. That said, it IS required for the insured (ML) to provide substantiation of the value of the loss. The insurance company can look for alternative means of valuation and the process becomes a dispute/negotiation which in a best case scenario is settled and a worse case scenario is litigated. Given the rarity of at least some of the cards involved and the conflicting interests in low vs high valuation, there could be some big differences in perceived value between the insurance company and insured party (ML) not to mention the complicating consignor factor. Running the auction gives a pretty hard to argue value basis for all the cards involved.
I don't have a horse in the race, just believe I understand some of why things unfolded the way they did. Once the cards were stolen the only better and "easy" ending would have been for them to have been recovered prior to the end of the auction. When that possibility expired, there was no good way for things to end. Some group (consignors, bidders, ML) was not going to be happy. I do hope that more information is revealed once the case is closed and (hopefully) the cards recovered.

Yes, it is one way to value it - a convenient way for consignors perhaps, but required a fraudulent auction that appears to even be illegal in CA and lying to thousands of people. No even half-way professional insurance company is going to advise doing this - they may accept those values but there is no realistic chance any legitimate insurer demanded, told, or advised to do this.


Since Memory Lane is promising an options on a contingency if they turn up, it appears there is actually a high chance there is no insurance here whatsoever. The insurance company owns recovered goods if they have paid on them, in pretty much any policy covering stolen goods. Memory Lane cannot promise these options deals to bidders if there is an insurance claim paid - the cards would become the property of the insurance company to sell or do with as they please (definitely sell somehow). Perhaps the options are just another lie, but I am surprised the ML fans have tried to go so far with the insurance claims that just makes no sense at all - this is probably the worst route to try and justify it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, it is one way to value it - a convenient way for consignors perhaps, but required a fraudulent auction that appears to even be illegal in CA and lying to thousands of people. No even half-way professional insurance company is going to advise doing this - they may accept those values but there is no realistic chance any legitimate insurer demanded, told, or advised to do this.


Since Memory Lane is promising an options on a contingency if they turn up, it appears there is actually a high chance there is no insurance here whatsoever. The insurance company owns recovered goods if they have paid on them, in pretty much any policy covering stolen goods. Memory Lane cannot promise these options deals to bidders if there is an insurance claim paid - the cards would become the property of the insurance company to sell or do with as they please (definitely sell somehow). Perhaps the options are just another lie, but I am surprised the ML fans have tried to go so far with the insurance claims that just makes no sense at all - this is probably the worst route to try and justify it.

You make so many assumptions you should write a novel....
.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Seven

That's exactly what I'm asking. I'd imagine they have to do SOMETHING with them

I have no idea on collectables. I do know vehicles because I have a friend who owns a business that buys them from the insurance company. If you total a vehicle and insurance pays out they own it. The insurance company already has a network set up to buy the wrecked vehicles. I would assume they have the same for collectables.

Originally Posted by Leon

You make so many assumptions you should write a novel....
.

Replace novel with comedy and I agree.

[MikeGarcia]

..It's been a while :




...Goudey Premium circa 1935-ish.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I have no idea on collectables. I do know vehicles because I have a friend who owns a business that buys them from the insurance company. If you total a vehicle and insurance pays out they own it. The insurance company already has a network set up to buy the wrecked vehicles. I would assume they have the same for collectables.

If there is an insurance payout and the cards are eventually recovered, why couldn't ML have a standing offer to buy them (on behalf of the winning bidders who still wanted their winnings) from the insurance company? Doesn't something like that seem obvious for everybody, especially the insurance company, who then wouldn't need to search for a buyer and probably sell at a discount?

And if few of the winning bidders still wanted their winnings, wouldn't it make sense for the insurance company to work a deal with ML to auction them off?

I don't see why it seems to be assumed that if an insurance company ends up with the recovered cards, that they'd become unavailable to ML or the bidders.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Leon

You make so many assumptions you should write a novel....
.

For the fourth time, I will repeat my request for an example of any insurance policy, demand or decision in all of human history anywhere in the world that a company run a fake fraudulent auction to value items.

This narrative so many of you are pushing makes absolutely no sense. What insurance company has ever done this? How are they paying out $2M but not securing the assets if recovered?

Please, correct me! All I’m seeing is claims that make no sense with no precedent. The story should make sense.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the fourth time, I will repeat my request for an example of any insurance policy, demand or decision in all of human history anywhere in the world that a company run a fake fraudulent auction to value items.

This narrative so many of you are pushing makes absolutely no sense. What insurance company has ever done this? How are they paying out $2M but not securing the assets if recovered?

Please, correct me! All I’m seeing is claims that make no sense with no precedent. The story should make sense.

You won't get it, nor I do I believe a statement is coming out from ML. We only can speculate.

The bottom line for me is what I said earlier. An AH in 2024 ran an auction with cards that were stolen. I can't belive that.

[SyrNy1960]

This thread started out in a straight line. This is how I feel now.

Will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

You won't get it, nor I do I believe a statement is coming out from ML. We only can speculate.

The bottom line for me is what I said earlier. An AH in 2024 ran an auction with cards that were stolen. I can't belive that.

I definitely won't get it, which is really the point. No insurance company works this way and everyone knows that, they can't use an example to put me in my place because there isn't one to use.

Just as we all know that if I did the exact same thing in the BST, not a single person would defend me (nor should they). I would almost certainly be banned (justly so) for doing the same thing. When a filthy plebe with the wrong ideas about consistently applied rules does it we would all know this is wrong. But lies and fraudulent auctions are just fine if they are run for the gain of the right people. This is precisely why this hobby will never be cleaned up - the corruption is a desired feature, not a bug.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

You won't get it, nor I do I believe a statement is coming out from ML. We only can speculate.

The bottom line for me is what I said earlier. An AH in 2024 ran an auction with cards that were stolen. I can't belive that.

You make it sound like they were deliberately trying to move stolen goods. Please.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the fourth time, I will repeat my request for an example of any insurance policy, demand or decision in all of human history anywhere in the world that a company run a fake fraudulent auction to value items.

This narrative so many of you are pushing makes absolutely no sense. What insurance company has ever done this? How are they paying out $2M but not securing the assets if recovered?

Please, correct me! All I’m seeing is claims that make no sense with no precedent. The story should make sense.

To add to this, this assumes there is insurance coverage for loss under these circumstances, which based on what we know (admittedly could be quite limited) seems highly unlikely. Anyone who has insurance can file a claim for loss. You do not need the ins co to give you permission. Once it gets before an adjuster that is a different story.

Adam stated it appeared to him to violate several consumer protection laws in CA to have run the auction. Ryan made it seem like ML was advised by a lawyer or the ins co to let the auction run. And lastly, Jeffrey, who seems to have some inside knowledge of this, agreed that it was necessary to let the auction run.

Lesson here is that mistakes are very hard to remedy sometimes.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Adam stated it appeared to him to violate several consumer protection laws in CA to have run the auction. Ryan made it seem like ML was advised by a lawyer or the ins co to let the auction run. And lastly, Jeffrey, who seems to have some inside knowledge of this, agreed that it was necessary to let the auction run.

Lesson here is that mistakes are very hard to remedy sometimes.

I do not have firsthand knowledge that ML received legal advice specifically to keep the auction running. Nor do I have firsthand knowledge of their insurance policy or what the insurance company may or may not have said. I have been told that ML has spoken with counsel, has spoken with their insurance carrier (who apparently ML believes will cover at least some of this), and is listening to the police who are overseeing an open and ongoing investigation. This is exactly how I think a rational person/business would proceed under these circumstances.

Here is what I would do... The minute I learned that my customers' property was stolen (the consignors are the true customer of an AH), I would have called the police. I also would have called my lawyer, and, given the size of the potential loss, I would have called my insurance carrier. Considering all the moving parts here, I would have taken strongly the advice of those advising me, including the advice, if any, of potential stakeholders (i.e., this is what an insurance company would become if they pay out a claim). At the same time, I would have done damage control by reaching out to all consignors and affected bidders, giving them whatever assurances I could and giving them as much facts as I was able to give considering the ongoing investigation.

Is there a perfect answer here? Hell no. Its a shit show -- $$ Millions of cards were stolen from a box delivered to, and accepted by, a Best Western Plus. These cards were part of an auction that had already started. Plus, from what I have been told, the police were optimistic they could find the thief and the cards before the auction ended, or even still today. So what does one do in this situation? Personally, I would listen to and act on the advice of others, most specifically my counsel (who I would trust over Adam W's message board legal advice/conclusions), and that is what I believe (but do not know) ML has done and is doing.

Its very easy to sit here, after the fact, judging from the safety of one's keyboard, the actions taken and difficult decisions made by the auction house under these circumstances. Time will tell how this all shakes out, but using simple logic, I think most would conclude that any rational business would solicit and act on the advice of counsel, listen the police investigating the crime, and seek guidance from their insurance provider. It follows, letting the auction play out must have been done for a purpose and, at least somewhat, at the recommendation of others. Perhaps it was done under bad advice, or because they thought they would have the cards, or for insurance purposes, or some other reason(s). But they made the business decision to continue the auction, and I bet dollars to dimes that decision was made after many conversations and hours of consultation.

What I think is most interesting/telling is that Powell (a litigator) and Darryl, both of whom won cards that were stolen, and me, one of the larger consignors to the auctions whose cards were stolen -- so both sides of the coin (bidders and consignors) -- dont take issue with how ML has handled this thus far, Nor does Scott, who runs an auction house, nor Howard, who is a dealer, nor Jeff nor Peter, both litigators and very knowledgeable and vocal in this industry/hobby.

Opinions are like assholes, and I have (maybe am) one just like the rest of us. And we are all entitled to them. So that's mine.

Ryan Hotchkiss

[mannequin1]

I know 2 million dollars of cards were stolen, but wasn't that only a small percentage of the number of items in the entire auction? Could that be why they let the auction run in its entirety?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by mannequin1

I know 2 million dollars of cards were stolen, but wasn't that only a small percentage of the number of items in the entire auction? Could that be why they let the auction run in its entirety?

Another question to many would be couldn't ML have the missing items bid up for insurance purposes? I'm NOT saying ML would do something like that with their stellar reputation in the business, but some people might suspect that.

This is posted near the top of every page. Please adhere to it in the future.

If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. It's one of the most important rules on the forum.



.

"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by mannequin1

I know 2 million dollars of cards were stolen, but wasn't that only a small percentage of the number of items in the entire auction? Could that be why they let the auction run in its entirety?

Another question to many would be couldn't ML have the missing items bid up for insurance purposes? I'm NOT saying ML would do something like that with their stellar reputation in the business, but some people might suspect that.

What would be the point of that? They would then have to pay the higher figure to the consignor.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by peter_spaeth

what would be the point of that? They would then have to pay the higher figure to the consignor.

20%?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Deertick

20%?

Same incentive they always have on every lot in every auction. As does every auction house.

[JollyElm]

A special 'Collectorisms' offering:

Bled and Breakfast
The theft of millions of dollars worth of rare and historical collectibles, which had for some inexplicable reason remained unsecured somewhere inside of a hotel facility.

See also: Indoor Fool - rightfully or wrongfully, the 'blunderous' employee who is ultimately held responsible for such an oversight.

See also: Broom Service - the methods employed by interested parties to lessen the repercussions and make sure this ridiculous travesty is swept under the rug and forgotten about.

[LOUCARDFAN]

I am utterly amazed that someone at ML actually thought sending $2 million dollars worth of someone else's cards to a cut rate hotel would be ok is astonishing enough.

I would also bet that the BW hotel wasn't even aware of the dollar value of the box that was received and ultimately stolen.

I am quite sure that if the hotel had been aware of it before hand, they would have told them no and that they would not be responsible for the shipment. Sorry, but even the Bellagio is cautious on high dollar items arriving at their place and they have an underground vault.

Secondly, would any of the winning bidders of the stolen items possibly have a case for legal action against ML to make them good on providing the item that they were contractually high bidder on? Those same bidders are contractually bound to pay ML for an item if they were high bidder so why not vice versa? I would think that if the items were stolen and the auction halted or stopped but since they let the auction continue all the while knowingly that they didn't have the items and very well never obtain them i would think they would be in a prime spot for legal action.

Lastly, I hope that the cards are ultimately found, and everyone is made good on this terrible predicament that ML put themselves in. Ryan, I do hope that you and all the other consigners are made whole but why wouldn't ML tell you and the other consigners anything but positive things to keep you all calm and patient which offers themselves more time to hopefully but doubtfully getting the cards back?

I would be willing to bet my entire collection that unless ML pays the consigners out of their own pockets, those consigners won't be made whole anytime soon as the insurance companies will deny any claims made and this will be tied up for years in the court system.

[Lobo Aullando]

Personally, I was hoping for Shipped-Ittery (n.) using a method of transport (including security at the receiving end) that is inadequate considering the potential loss.

Originally Posted by JollyElm

A special 'Collectorisms' offering:

Bled and Breakfast
The theft of millions of dollars worth of rare and historical collectibles, which had for some inexplicable reason remained unsecured somewhere inside of a hotel facility.

See also: Indoor Fool - rightfully or wrongfully, the 'blunderous' employee who is ultimately held responsible for such an oversight.

See also: Broom Service - the methods employed by interested parties to lessen the repercussions and make sure this ridiculous travesty is swept under the rug and forgotten about.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Deertick

20%?

Again, be logical. First, these were all the big time cards in the auction, so ML gave up part of their 20%. Second, do you really think a long-standing auction house that likely makes over $1.5mm each auction would commit insurance fraud for an extra 12%-15% on $2mm (or and extra $250k - $300k)? I am sure there are businesses who would do something crazy like that, but memory lane (like most businesses) would not. Third, they just had $2mm+ of other people’s property stolen, and they are more than half way through an auction and trying to figure out what to do, and you think the conclusion is shill the stolen cards so we get X% more for insurance? I doubt ML would do that ever, but under these circumstances I think that thought was further east from their minds.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Again, be logical. First, these were all the big time cards in the auction, so ML gave up part of their 20%. Second, do you really think a long-standing auction house that likely makes over $1.5mm each auction would commit insurance fraud for an extra 12%-15% on $2mm (or and extra $250k - $300k)? I am sure there are businesses who would do something crazy like that, but memory lane (like most businesses) would not. Third, they just had $2mm+ of other people’s property stolen, and they are more than half way through an auction and trying to figure out what to do, and you think the conclusion is shill the stolen cards so we get X% more for insurance? I doubt ML would do that ever, but under these circumstances I think that thought was further east from their minds.

Sorry, I was being facetious. Just trying to beat the next conspiracy theorist to the punch.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Sorry, I was being facetious. Just trying to beat the next conspiracy theorist to the punch.

Fair enough. And actually a pretty good one, now that you explain it. All good

[toothcutter]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Again, be logical. First, these were all the big time cards in the auction, so ML gave up part of their 20%. Second, do you really think a long-standing auction house that likely makes over $1.5mm each auction would commit insurance fraud for an extra 12%-15% on $2mm (or and extra $250k - $300k)? I am sure there are businesses who would do something crazy like that, but memory lane (like most businesses) would not. Third, they just had $2mm+ of other people’s property stolen, and they are more than half way through an auction and trying to figure out what to do, and you think the conclusion is shill the stolen cards so we get X% more for insurance? I doubt ML would do that ever, but under these circumstances I think that thought was further east from their minds.

Is an inside job possible?

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by toothcutter

Is an inside job possible?

It's definitely an inside job at the BW+ level imho.

[mannequin1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What would be the point of that? They would then have to pay the higher figure to the consignor.

I was thinking of the insurance company, not the consignor.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by mannequin1

I was thinking of the insurance company, not the consignor.

We know. Peter was explaining that your position doesn't make sense, as any "extra" that ML received from the insurance would then have to be paid to the consignors.

[Republicaninmass]

Why on earth wouldn't they just ship them to the guys house who is driving to the show? Did they pay for his flight then go "all in" for a best Western plus? Hindsight...wow.