Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[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.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

Not saying that. I am saying that they auctioned off cards that were stolen and not in their possession at the time of the auction.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Not saying that. I am saying that they auctioned off cards that were stolen and not in their possession at the time of the auction.

Some cards were stolen after they started an auction, and they made a decision to run the full auction to completion to simplify what otherwise could have been a litigious and complicated process of establishing values in case the cards were not recovered and compensation needed to be paid to consignors. Sure, one can fairly criticize that, but let's characterize it accurately.

[nolemmings]

Assuming the cards are not located soon and returned in the same condition, then there likely will be an insurance payout– my guess would be under multiple policies. It is interesting and a bit tricky as to what happens from there if the cards are recovered, particularly if this occurs ad hoc over time. As a general matter yes, the insurer who pays for the loss would be considered the owner entitled to possession once the cards are found. However, I would imagine that before any claim is paid, there will be a written understanding among all concerned regarding any rights to the cards. I can imagine there are myriad scenarios as to who has rights to buy, who must sell, and the process by which the card will be transacted. I would also think that the insurance company could assign its rights to someone for a price and be done with it. Again, a much cleaner process if the entire group is found at once and relatively soon, but a cluster**** if these cards pop up one or a few at a time over the next ten years.
Also keep in mind law enforcement’s role. It is my understanding that if these are recovered and held by law enforcement, the applicable agency may have rules regarding what it requires in the way of authorizations before it will release stolen property. Maybe not a problem by the end of the day for someone relieved to finally get his card, but another party to deal with nonetheless.

[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

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

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

You replied to me but not sure all was intended for me. I have no stance on whether it was right or wrong to let the auction run. I think it is an interesting debate and I see both sides as having merit. I am not a bidder, consignor, auction house owner, law enforcement nor lawyer. It is a crappy situation and it is a damned if you do damned if ya don't circumstance.

My only judgement, which is really my opinion, was the decision by ML to ship 2 million dollars worth of cards to a motel where the true intended recipient was not due to show up for a few more days, was probably not the greatest idea they have had. The cards are secure at ML but not a motel front desk.

[Leon]

Nice post, Ryan. Well put. When I have stated things in my posts they have always been assumptions based on what I have read and been told. I have no first hand knowlege but definitely agree with that post. None of us except JP, and maybe some of his team, have first hand knowledge. All of the crap that has been spewed in this thread has made me, as well as a few friends, laugh so hard (at what has been said, not the horrible situation) our sides have hurt...
.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Leon

All of the crap that has been spewed in this thread has made me, as well as a few friends, laugh so hard (at what has been said, not the horrible situation) our sides have hurt...
.

There has been laughter on the other side of the room, too.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Leon

Nice post, Ryan. Well put. When I have stated things in my posts they have always been assumptions based on what I have read and been told. I have no first hand knowlege but definitely agree with that post. None of us except JP, and maybe some of his team, have first hand knowledge. All of the crap that has been spewed in this thread has made me, as well as a few friends, laugh so hard (at what has been said, not the horrible situation) our sides have hurt...
.

It is an unfortunate situation but I think, for the most part, the discussion has been interesting. There are some passionate people posting their opinions as happens on many other threads where mysteries are involved. I suppose there might be more productive things we could all be doing rather than posting on this topic or laughing over the posts but at the end of the day, many threads are just guys with opinions posting them for others to read and comment on. This too shall pass...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Leon

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

Originally Posted by Leon

Nice post, Ryan. Well put. When I have stated things in my posts they have always been assumptions based on what I have read and been told. I have no first hand knowlege but definitely agree with that post. None of us except JP, and maybe some of his team, have first hand knowledge. All of the crap that has been spewed in this thread has made me, as well as a few friends, laugh so hard (at what has been said, not the horrible situation) our sides have hurt...
.

Oh, both sides are getting quite a laugh. One at people expecting the same principles be applied to everyone, and the other for the contradictory and absurd insurance defense.

Still waiting for the refutation of said crap and a single example of this kind of insurance policy/demand/decision/pathway in all of human history.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

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.

Ryan, I do appreciate your responses to this matter. But please don't take silence on the other side of the argument as acceptance at what happened.

[ricktmd]

I also agree with Ryan. ML made the best of a terrible situation and is taking the high road by paying consignors and not waiting for the insurance companies to settle the matter. I doubt many other Auction Houses would reach in their pockets to pay consignors. I use Memory Lane and think they are top shelf. If they let the auction run and didn't pay the consignors or took money from bidders that would be another story. They did what they had to and protected their consignors and bidders both. As far as the winning bidders not being able to get the items they won (or pay anything), if it were me I would think it is not that big a deal as no money was lost.

If the cards are not found very soon it will likely be a battle between insurance companies. Memory Lanes insurance company is not going to just roll over and pay when the liability is with the Hotel. I highly doubt (as stated in this post by others) that the tag in the room relating to liability of property belonging to guests is equally applied to owners of the hotel holding valuable property for a future guest that they signed for. I am an investor in hotels similar to this and for sure the hotel has liability and will look to their insurance carrier (assuming they have an appropriate policy)

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by ricktmd

I also agree with Ryan. ML made the best of a terrible situation and is taking the high road by paying consignors and not waiting for the insurance companies to settle the matter. I doubt many other Auction Houses would reach in their pockets to pay consignors. I use Memory Lane and think they are top shelf. If they let the auction run and didn't pay the consignors or took money from bidders that would be another story. They did what they had to and protected their consignors and bidders both. As far as the winning bidders not being able to get the items they won (or pay anything), if it were me I would think it is not that big a deal as no money was lost.

If the cards are not found very soon it will likely be a battle between insurance companies. Memory Lanes insurance company is not going to just roll over and pay when the liability is with the Hotel. I highly doubt (as stated in this post by others) that the tag in the room relating to liability of property belonging to guests is equally applied to owners of the hotel holding valuable property for a future guest that they signed for. I am an investor in hotels similar to this and for sure the hotel has liability and will look to their insurance carrier (assuming they have an appropriate policy)

They don't have working elevators, short staff and barely have running hot water. Yea, big insurance policy I'm sure. LOL.

[rjackson44]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

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

hope it works out for ryan i have a lot of resdpect for this gentleman .whole issue stinks

[BeanTown]

Couple things that haven’t been mentioned yet. This could be the second largest theft behind the Met Museum theft, which took place over decades.

Very sad for Memory Lane, and all customers involved both as buyers and sellers.

If FedEx was used to ship the cards, what service did ML use? Overnight and 2 day air service only uses FEDEx employees and are ten times more secure. Ground service is outsourced and not all FEDEx employees are involved which makes a lot more riskier. Yes, I know the package was delivered to the hotel, but my point here is did ML take reasonable responsibility in shipping the box worth 2 million dollars and maybe there could be a percentage of fault going on here. When I read the packaged arrived early, how come it wasn’t timed to be delivered on the same day arrival by ML employees?

Another example would be if ML shipped the package directly to the show venue, a restaurant or even a friends house, would that change the scenario for responsibility?

I have no issue with the business decision ML made to run the auction and I’m pretty sure the insurance company, law enforcement and counsel all rendered their opinions and ML made the final call on how to proceed.

I would like to see the list of all items that were stolen by the scumbag perp(s) as items could start showing up on eBay, pawn shops, and even newspapers (if folks still sell cards in the want ads). I hope all the smaller card shops in the area are on high alert for items that were stolen.

I’m curious as to how the bidding played out, on all the ghost lots since insurance hopefully was involved. How many folks actually knew what was going on, or knew they were ghost lots.

As a buyer, many times I sell or consign items to pay for another auction winnings. So, this does effect folks as mentioned earlier about tapping 401ks or something along those lines.

Lastly, if insurance is paid out and the perps are found and court is done. The insurance company owns the cards, and they would do what with them? Offer back to ML for what the payout was? Use another auction company to recoup what they could from the payout? If this was the case… I hope we would all be posted as to when and where the auction was. I know many times I see some treasures found from the US marshals and other agencies and I wished I would have known about the sale.

I’ve read many great posts on this thread, it’s all speculation as we likely don’t know half the facts. As of now, I think Memory Lane, consigners, and buyers are all victims and I hope ML was prepared for the unthinkable to happen. Hopefully the hobby will be able to recoup everything stolen, and my hunch is over time that will occur. These cards do leave finger prints, as each one is unique.

[Yoda]

Just a couple of insurance points; first, as this appears to be an inside job, who at BW signed for the package, where was the package stored after delivery and who, if any, was told that something important looking was now being held, second, if there are no visible signs of forcible entry or break-in, then any employees involved with the package would become immediate suspects. I assume the police have investigated all this already.
Most transit policies are covered by an inland marine floater cover, normally on an all risk basis, including theft. I somehow doubt that ML has high enough limits for cover, unless they arranged a higher limit for this dumb shipment.
If the insurance company pays and the cards are recovered, then they take possession of them. That is a standard clause in virtually all property policies.
If the cards are not recovered then the carrier will subrogate against BW due to their negligence. The small statutory innkeepers liability limit will not protect BW in this case.
It will be fascinating to see how it all plays out. Of course, I have to wonder if ML can survive all of this; a bad hit to their rep, financial considerations and disgusted consignors, some of whom may take judicial action against ML.