New lawsuit accuses PWCC of massive shill bidding

[Peter_Spaeth]

22. Alt was informed that PWCC, including its CEO and another senior
executive, had access to maximum bids submitted by Alt and others despite PWCC’s
representation that maximum bids were “private and … only viewable by the client that
submitted the bid.”
23. Alt was also informed that PWCC, which “financially pre-qualified”
bidders for its premier auctions, flagged to its personnel when high net-worth bidders such as Alt
were bidders in PWCC auctions, and, on many such occasions, arranged, and/or solicited shill
bids to drive up the auction price. Alt learned that PWCC’s senior executives communicated
within PWCC that a high net-worth bidder’s participation in auction bidding presented a golden
opportunity to set a new record comp or sales price.
24. Alt was informed that PWCC arranged or solicited shill bids from both
internal and external sources. Alt learned that certain accounts that submitted bids in (but did not
win) PWCC auctions had identifiers indicating that the bids came from within PWCC, despite
PWCC’s representation that “[a]ll employees are prohibited from bidding on PWCC Auction
items.”

It will be VERY interesting to see who Alt's source is (or sources).

[Eric72]

A Josh Allen card sold for more than a quarter million dollars.

Damn, those were crazy times.

[jingram058]

Yet another reason for the inflation that has prevailed in "the hobby". Shenanigans like this.

[Peter_Spaeth]

2016 revisited.

34. Alt also learned that PWCC solicited, assisted or facilitated bid
manipulation by others in connection with auctions on PWCC’s platform. In particular, PWCC
was aware of, and solicited bids from, a group of approximately six individuals (“Group 1”) who
fraudulently and collusively bid up items in PWCC auctions, including items that members of
Group 1 had put up for auction, notwithstanding PWCC’s representation that PWCC clients
could not bid, individually or collusively, on their own items.
35. In some instances, a member of Group 1 submitted the winning bid in a
PWCC auction, but did not consummate the transaction by paying the purchase price. PWCC’s
stated policy was that non-payment would result in a ban from participation in PWCC auctions.
PWCC, however, took no action and facilitated continued bid manipulation by members of
Group 1 by allowing such members to continue to participate in its auctions despite nonpayment.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Yet another reason for the inflation that has prevailed in "the hobby". Shenanigans like this.

So Alt alleges:
49. In addition, the fraudulent conduct by PWCC and the individuals with
whom it was complicit drove up comparable prices across the broader trading card market. Most
buyers and sellers (including Alt) relied on recent “comps” to determine trading card values.
During the relevant timeframe, PWCC was one of the biggest players in the auction space, and
PWCC comps were anchoring prices, influencing expectations, and driving market momentum.
Alt estimates that PWCC’s fraudulent conduct inflated market-wide trading card prices by over
40 percent.

[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

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

SMH. A significant lawsuit with serious and far reaching accusations against a company we all know and most have dealt with, and this is your focus?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

SMH. A significant lawsuit with serious and far reaching accusations against a company we all know and most have dealt with, and this is your focus?

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?

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

SMH. A significant lawsuit with serious and far reaching accusations against a company we all know and most have dealt with, and this is your focus?

When you are an angry fella and hate the world what else could you possibly expect?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Of course, this is the only place where this type of conduct went on during 2021, right?