Shanus-REA suit

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

It seems to me about 1/3 to 1/2 of the auction houses have had "problems". Way, way higher than the other professions.

What I'd like to see is how many of these auction house honchos would be willing to take polygraph tests to assure the collecting community that they've never engaged in shill bidding, card doctoring (actively themselves or knowingly through a third party), allowing items of questionable authenticity to be embellish as the "real deal", consigning their own items without disclosure, and the list goes on.

As I recall, recently one auction house boss was already given that challenge on this board to deny just one of those issues on a polygraph and best my knowledge never accepted that offer to "clear the air".

[pwilk17]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

What I'd like to see is how many of these auction house honchos would be willing to take polygraph tests to assure the collecting community that they've never engaged in shill bidding, card doctoring (actively themselves or knowingly through a third party), allowing items of questionable authenticity to be embellish as the "real deal", consigning their own items without disclosure, and the list goes on.

As I recall, recently one auction house boss was already given that challenge on this board to deny just one of those issues on a polygraph and best my knowledge never accepted that offer to "clear the air".

I would also like to see the owners and managers of third party authentication companies take these polygraph tests as well. It would be nice to find out who the true good guys are.

[calvindog]

I'd also like to see certain posters on this board take IQ tests.

[19cbb]

Forget the Cowbell... What this lawsuit needs is more Halper!

[Peter_Spaeth]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After 7 years, this case recently went to trial, and the jury reached a verdict several days ago. I was able to download in PDF form the verdict sheet and the jury communication regarding punitive damages from PACER, but you would need a PACER ID to see them. If I can figure out a way to post the PDFs in full, I will.

In the meantime, this is what happened, based on my review of the publicly-accessible record which of course is all I know.

While there were several counts in Mr. Shanus' Amended Complaint, the only one that went to trial was Count II, which charged Mr. Lifson and REA (Robert Edward Auctions, LLC, which subsequently changed its name to R.L. Americana, LLC) with fraud, and specifically, with "engag[ing] in a systematic scheme of misrepresenting and reporting sales with the intent of artificially inflating the auction prices of items being offered for sale." The Amended Complaint alleges as examples of such items the "Origins of Baseball Letter" and the "Fashion Course Trophy Ball," and alleges that the purchase prices of these items in REA's auction were "false and fraudulent." Those two items, and no others, are mentioned in the verdict sheet.

The jury answered a series of questions tracking the elements of fraud, separately against each defendant. It answered all questions in the affirmative.

The jury awarded no damages against the REA entity, and $55,100 against Mr. Lifson. The jury also awarded punitive damages against Mr. Lifson of $52,900.

A couple of notes:

1. This has nothing to do with Bryan Dwyer.

2. This is a civil case and there may, of course, be post-trial motions and/or an appeal.

3. I don't know the evidentiary basis for the jury's findings. Beyond the pleading stage, most of the significant filings and even the court's summary judgment opinion were not publicly-accessible through PACER, which was frustrating to me as I tried to follow the case over the years. And the transcripts of the trial, though referenced in the PACER docket, are not publicly-accessible at this time.
__________________

[Snapolit1]

Interesting. Case certainly dragged long enough. Wonder what the reason for the name change was?

[Rich Klein]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Interesting. Case certainly dragged long enough. Wonder what the reason for the name change was? """

Probably having to do with Brian taking over REA. Since Brian bought REA he is using that name while R.L. is Rob's initials. My instinct, for the three cents it is worth tell me that change is not nefarious in any way

Rich

[Stonepony]

Can we surmise that " systematic scheme" means there are far more problems that those in Mr Shanus' complaint? Or no?

[steve B]

I would have to believe that there are few auction houses where shilling hasn't happened, and those few would be new ones. But there are probably only a few that have done the shilling themselves. In theory I could consign anywhere, and have a friend bid on my items. Pretty hard to prove, and harder to stop.

I also have to believe that every auction that's been around long enough has handled an item or two that is either fake, altered, or stolen. Stolen stuff because the item isn't widely known as stolen. Altered stuff - Maybe the alteration was done well enough to pass inspection at one time, but newer technology has made it possible to detect the alteration. And some fake stuff can be well done enough to get past many experts. Nobody can catch 100% of the questionable items unless they have access to a lot of lab gear and time. And even then some stuff would slip through.

The need for third party graders to not buy or sell cards is a tough one. Yes, it's a conflict. But I wouldn't expect someone with no knowledge or interest in cards to be able to authenticate them. Stamps are authenticated by experts in a particular issue. All of them collect, and buying and selling are a part of that.

Steve Birmingham

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by steve B

I would have to believe that there are few auction houses where shilling hasn't happened, and those few would be new ones. But there are probably only a few that have done the shilling themselves. In theory I could consign anywhere, and have a friend bid on my items. Pretty hard to prove, and harder to stop.

I also have to believe that every auction that's been around long enough has handled an item or two that is either fake, altered, or stolen. Stolen stuff because the item isn't widely known as stolen. Altered stuff - Maybe the alteration was done well enough to pass inspection at one time, but newer technology has made it possible to detect the alteration. And some fake stuff can be well done enough to get past many experts. Nobody can catch 100% of the questionable items unless they have access to a lot of lab gear and time. And even then some stuff would slip through.

The need for third party graders to not buy or sell cards is a tough one. Yes, it's a conflict. But I wouldn't expect someone with no knowledge or interest in cards to be able to authenticate them. Stamps are authenticated by experts in a particular issue. All of them collect, and buying and selling are a part of that.

Steve Birmingham

I agree completely. We'll never see an auction system that is free of shill bidding; however, at the very least we should expect auction houses not to engage in fraud themselves.

[ls7plus]

Agree completely with Jeff on that one. It's just so annoying to be so very conveniently cha-chinged right up to but not past your maximum bid near the end of the auction by some of these auction houses. I can think of at least two instances where that's happened to me right off the top of my head. I would think the auction house would have to have been involved in those cases, at least to the extent of tipping off the consignor concerning the maximum bid. Maybe the only thing you can do with auction houses known to have pulled this is to set the maximum bid a few rungs lower than you ordinarily might-- better suggestions?

Good move, by the way, Bill. Oh and by the way, Jeff? My wife tested out at an IQ of 163, and she still doesn't like baseball cards!

Best regards, everyone.

Larry

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Maybe the only thing you can do with auction houses known to have pulled this is to set the maximum bid a few rungs lower than you ordinarily might-- better suggestions?

Larry

If you don't trust them, don't use max bids at all. Only put in the next bid that puts you on top. Monitor the auction to the end.

Cheers,
Blair

[sports-rings]

not once have I ever informed any auction house what my high big was. to me, it's none of their business.

Would you give your credit card or keys to your house to strangers? In most cases, how well do we really know the employees at auction houses?

[bsuttonosu]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Maybe the only thing you can do with auction houses known to have pulled this is to set the maximum bid a few rungs lower than you ordinarily might-- better suggestions?

If you know an auction house has engaged in this activity, why are you looking for suggestions about how to modify your bidding activity? My suggestion would be that you NEVER USE THAT AUCTION HOUSE AGAIN. They stole from you.

The truth is, this is the real problem. Everyone gives example after example of unethical behavior and then continues to bid. It seems there are very few (though I do know some) that are willing to boycott these unethical practices when it comes down to a card they really want. Until we stop accepting it as buyers and put these places out of business, it will continue...and it will continue to be our fault.

Ben Sutton.

[ls7plus]

That's all well and good in theory, Ben, and I agree with you completely "in theory." If you're looking for an item that comes up regularly (which is almost always not what I'm looking for; I much prefer rare and significant, in the best condition available or that I can afford), then there is no problem. With regard to such fungible items, you're right; you simply avoid those auction houses whose ethics are not what they should be.

But if what you're bidding on is an item you've been after for perhaps a decade or more without success, and/or is very, very rarely seen in auction catalogues at all, has a pop report of less than ten, all of which tends to indicate that the examples that do exist have been gathered into private collectors' hands and are intended to be kept that way for many, many years (what is referred to as "strong hands" with regard to great rarities in the realm of coin collecting), then you've got a far tougher choice. As Adam (Exhibitman) has said with regard to '50's cards, it is no great chore to find virtually any example in NMt-Mt or better at almost any time, and one can afford to be choosy with regard to who the seller is. Try doing the same thing with a 1923-1924 Exhibit Ruth, the 1931-32 Exhibit Ruth (beautiful portrait!) from the movie stars set (PSA has graded 3; I have the highest, a "5"), or even a more recent acquisition, the 1907 Dietsche Cobb Fielding Position.

The simple, inescapable fact of the matter is that there are certain cards that many of the members of this board will never have the wherewithal to acquire unless they are purchased when they are available within a certain price range (including me--I don't know about your finances, and that's absolutely none of my business in any event!). These are those cards that come up so rarely, that are so significant to the history of baseball and have such a significant upside in value, that they are best snatched up if you want them in your collection badly enough when they are available. One prime example would be when my wife and I were attending the Strongsville, Ohio show in the early '90's. One of the dealers there had a NMt-Mt M101 Ruth rookie. He wouldn't budge on it for less than $7,000. I had only $5,000 to spend, and couldn't make the deal (I ended up later settling for one in poor to fair condition for $1700, if memory serves correctly). The last (only?) sale I am aware of for that card in that grade was not so long ago (2009?) for $140,000. I highly doubt that I'll ever be in that market for a card (now the wife says she would have come up with the additional $2,000, but hindsight is 20/20--she's not a Babe Ruth fan, but she most definitely is a fan of $140,000!). The fact is, if I wanted that card in that grade in my lifetime, then was the time. And almost certainly the only time.

It depends upon your perspective, I guess. Mine is that sometimes you simply have to bite the bullet. If you feel that there is no room for compromise in your stance under any circumstances, I tip my hat to you.

Best wishes to you in your collecting endeavors!

Larry

[the 'stache]

I just read this entire thing, start to finish. All I can say is, I'm so glad I didn't go into law. Studying legal history in college is one thing. I thoroughly enjoyed the hundreds of hours I spent researching precedent cases in Lexisnexis and Westlaw. And every single element of mock trial fascinated me. But the actual practice of law in the real world is so very different than the young idealist in me could have ever anticipated. Jeff, Larry et all, I don't know where you guys find the patience your chosen profession requires. Chapeau.

To briefly touch on the point that was discussed earlier, comparing the amount of corruption prevalent in our hobby to that within the legal and financial realms-there's really no comparison to be made, at all. There are going to be those who engage in nefarious activity in any large group of people. It's unavoidable. Money attracts the unscrupulous. But speaking as one who worked in the investments industry, and is familiar with the oversight and safeguards in place, the kind of underhanded behavior that runs rampant in our hobby could never exist there. Not on that scale.

[Snapolit1]

Silence in response to a jury verdict for fraud and award of punitive damages is nearly deafening. Had same thing happened to Probstein we’d be at outraged and or gleeful post 625 by now. Jury verdict seems to be given back of hand by even attorneys on the board who champion rooting out fraud in the industry. Odd to say the least.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Silence in response to a jury verdict for fraud and award of punitive damages is nearly deafening. Had same thing happened to Probstein we’d be at outraged and or gleeful post 625 by now. Jury verdict seems to be given back of hand by even attorneys on the board who champion rooting out fraud in the industry. Odd to say the least.

Relatively tiny jury verdict in response to a massive lawsuit with numerous counts dismissed, Rob has a great reputation in the field and this is an isolated act, jury verdicts do not necessarily equate to truth as learned by people who actually try cases for a living and don't just talk about it.

[Snapolit1]

I’ve had friends in the financial world who have been cited for serious securities infractions and have carried it around their neck like an albatross for years. They haven’t simply walked down the street and gotten another job doing the same thing. They have continued their careers but believe me the leading brokerage houses were not rolling out the red carpet to offer them another position.


QUOTE=the 'stache;1775566]I just read this entire thing, start to finish. All I can say is, I'm so glad I didn't go into law. Studying legal history in college is one thing. I thoroughly enjoyed the hundreds of hours I spent researching precedent cases in Lexisnexis and Westlaw. And every single element of mock trial fascinated me. But the actual practice of law in the real world is so very different than the young idealist in me could have ever anticipated. Jeff, Larry et all, I don't know where you guys find the patience your chosen profession requires. Chapeau.

To briefly touch on the point that was discussed earlier, comparing the amount of corruption prevalent in our hobby to that within the legal and financial realms-there's really no comparison to be made, at all. There are going to be those who engage in nefarious activity in any large group of people. It's unavoidable. Money attracts the unscrupulous. But speaking as one who worked in the investments industry, and is familiar with the oversight and safeguards in place, the kind of underhanded behavior that runs rampant in our hobby could never exist there. Not on that scale.[/QUOTE]

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I’ve had friends in the financial world who have been cited for serious securities infractions and have carried it around their neck like an albatross for years. They haven’t simply walked down the street and gotten another job doing the same thing. They have continued their careers but believe me the leading brokerage houses were not rolling out the red carpet to offer them another position.

I am not overstating it when I say that, in my particular industry, ethics was everything. It's a pretty big part of the Series 7 exam. I only worked for one broker-dealer firm, but they hammered it home that our fiduciary responsibility was at the forefront of everything that we did, especially when I began preliminary studying for my 66 to work as an RIA (registered investment advisor). I held that responsibility inviolate.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA (which used to be called the NASD) tracks every single registered representative within the industry, and continues to provide information on these representatives even after they are no longer a part of the industry. Case in point, here's my profile on FINRA's Broker Check. Even though it's been more than eight years since I was forced to leave the industry when I went on disability, everything I did as a registered representative is still available to the public. The licenses I held, and when they were passed, the firm I worked at, and the exact period of time that I was licensed. If any kind of regulatory actions had been brought against me, or if I had been terminated for cause-that information would be there. If you screw up, the black mark on your record, as far as I know, never goes away.

[Mdmtx]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

But speaking as one who worked in the investments industry, and is familiar with the oversight and safeguards in place, the kind of underhanded behavior that runs rampant in our hobby could never exist there. Not on that scale.

I seem to remember a small little news story about a tiny investment firm. Something like Bernie Madoff Securities. You are correct. There could never be any large scale malfeasance in the investment world. Just tiny little deals like Bernie.


Mark Medlin.

[calvindog]

I just spoke to Leon about this. Yes, Rob was found responsible by a civil jury on the one surviving claim of Corey's. Yes that's bad. But spending seven figures in seven years to make 100K just can't feel like a win to me. The lawyers -- who I both know and are good guys and better lawyers -- won here.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I seem to remember a small little news story about a tiny investment firm. Something like Bernie Madoff Securities. You are correct. There could never be any large scale malfeasance in the investment world. Just tiny little deals like Bernie.


Mark Medlin.

Well, Bernie didn't walk down the street and get hired by another Wall Street shop, did he? Which appears to be the norm in this industry. Last I heard he was sitting in a federal prison until his day of death.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I seem to remember a small little news story about a tiny investment firm. Something like Bernie Madoff Securities. You are correct. There could never be any large scale malfeasance in the investment world. Just tiny little deals like Bernie.


Mark Medlin.

I wasn't referring to large-scale malfeasance as exhibited by one perpetrator like Bernie Madoff. I was referring to the sheer number of individuals engaging in unscrupulous activity in our hobby as compared to professions like the law, or investments. My comment was in reference to, and in support of what Jeff said here:

Originally Posted by calvindog

Hank, I can assure you that there is a higher percentage of people in the hobby/business with criminal records than there are in the field of politics, law, religion, finance and medicine.

To wit:

From Merriam-Webster
Definition of LARGE-SCALE
1 : involving many people or things.

If you needed clarification, you could have asked, and I'd have happily expounded on the point I was making. Instead, you made an assumption, and decided to respond like a smart ass. Furthermore-are you f'g kidding me with this? Do you think it's even remotely possible a licensed stockbroker could not know about Bernie Madoff? What, did you think that just because I went on disability, I magically developed amnesia, forgetting about what I'd done for the prior three plus years, while simultaneously losing touch with my professional contacts/colleagues/friends still gainfully employed within the industry? Did you think because I was no longer actively working for a broker-dealer that I would stop investing in my own trading account(s), and no longer stay abreast of investment news?

Clearly there are examples of people in the legal profession, and in investments, that have operated in illegal activity on a grand scale. No system is fool proof. But it is infinitely more difficult to further this kind of activity in investments than it is in the baseball card hobby. As was previously referenced, there is no collective body overseeing auction houses, no form of recourse available outside of civil court. And that can take several years, as evidenced by the central discussion of this thread. That process has not even been completed. Broker-dealers, and their individual employees, are subject to oversight and fines, which can be substantial, and happen quickly. These fines can be levied against entities and individuals without them ever stepping foot in a courthouse. Check out the last episode of Billions on Showtime. Dudley Mafee is a trader for the Axe Capitol hedge fund. The SEC fined him $181,000 for a tier three penalty, termed "fraud, and reckless disregard of regulatory requirements." When Mafee's complicity was brought to the attention of the SEC, the fine was imposed within mere days.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

comparing the amount of corruption prevalent in our hobby to that within the legal and financial realms-there's really no comparison to be made, at all. There are going to be those who engage in nefarious activity in any large group of people. It's unavoidable. Money attracts the unscrupulous. But speaking as one who worked in the investments industry, and is familiar with the oversight and safeguards in place, the kind of underhanded behavior that runs rampant in our hobby could never exist there. Not on that scale.