Shanus-REA suit

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill hopefully at some point they will be released, or with only minor redactions. That day is probably some time off. But even knowing what we know, and subject to the caveat about further proceedings which I noted in my post, it still seemed an event worthy of reporting and discussing. I would guess that if the defendant had a different name, we would be having a much livelier discussion.

Honestly, Peter, for my part, the name(s) involved don't have as much to do with my hesitancy to jump into this with both feet, though I could certainly see this being a factor with other posters who have had long-standing relationships with the co-defendants. I'm just somewhat leery of participating in discussions of legally determined guilt-where what we say becomes, in essence, part of public record-without knowing everything that transpired. Am I being overcautious? Probably. But absent complete information, it's too easy to misstate something, and get into hot water.

I'm probably rambling a bit, and it's possible I overreacted to Mark's post, too. I've never had any issue with him, but it sure seemed that he was being patronizing. I've been up 16 hours without sleep...

Mark, if I did misinterpret your comment, then I apologize.

Peter, I'll come back to this a little later tonight, after I've seen my pillow for a while. When I'm lucid again, I can tiptoe through my feelings on what's transpired, thus far.

[Leon]

There was only one defendant. Neither of us are lawyers but I apparently have slept at more Holiday Inns.

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Honestly, Peter, for my part, the name(s) involved don't have as much to do with my hesitancy to jump into this with both feet, though I could certainly see this being a factor with other posters who have had long-standing relationships with the co-defendants. I'm just somewhat leery of participating in discussions of legally determined guilt-where what we say becomes, in essence, part of public record-without knowing everything that transpired. Am I being overcautious? Probably. But absent complete information, it's too easy to misstate something, and get into hot water.

I'm probably rambling a bit, and it's possible I overreacted to Mark's post, too. I've never had any issue with him, but it sure seemed that he was being patronizing. I've been up 16 hours without sleep...

Mark, if I did misinterpret your comment, then I apologize.

Peter, I'll come back to this a little later tonight, after I've seen my pillow for a while. When I'm lucid again, I can tiptoe through my feelings on what's transpired, thus far.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

There was only one defendant. Neither of us are lawyers but I apparently have slept at more Holiday Inns.

REA and Mr. Lifson were both defendants.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

REA and Mr. Lifson were both defendants.

Ok there were 2, my mistake. But I am pretty sure Bill was inferring the hobbyists knew both defendants and he meant Corey and Rob not meaning members knew Rob's other company....Bill originally, probably meant to say "litigants". But I am wrong, there were 2 defendants. More to come I am sure....

[Rich Klein]

Since several people in the discussion in the thread are from the DFW area we can hash this out in person. And I have the ideal venue, my next show on June 9-10 at the Comfort Inn and Suites Plano East. There is a nice sitting area where they serve the breakfasts and I'll be happy to facilitate the discussion.

Rich

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Since several people in the discussion in the thread are from the DFW area we can hash this out in person. And I have the ideal venue, my next show on June 9-10 at the Comfort Inn and Suites Plano East. There is a nice sitting area where they serve the breakfasts and I'll be happy to facilitate the discussion.

Rich

There's a thread hijacking for the ages.

[Snapolit1]

Nothing to see here . . . keep moving.

Can't we resume talking about suspected shilling of $100 cards at PWCC and cabals of unknown people reporting fake sales prices for items? Faceless people always far preferable than friends.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I was a bit steamed when I wrote that, Leon. And my apologies for the F bomb.

What other forms of recourse are there besides civil court? Can an auction house and a complainant enter into binding arbitration?

Bill, sorry I missed your question, private parties can certainly agree to arbitrate almost any dispute, and I see no reason they could not have done so here. However, it's frequently the case that one side, or both, perceives that they will have the advantage with a jury. Parties can also enlist a mediator to help them try to resolve their dispute, and that's popular these days in certain types of cases and sometimes useful. Certainly both alternatives are more cost-effective.

[oldjudge]

I thought the suit was about Corey recovering what he paid for some trophy balls which were alleged to have been painted with a type of paint that did not exist in the 19th century? Am I wrong, or was this part of the suit dismissed?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Count I. The case went to trial on Count II.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There's a thread hijacking for the ages.

I'd love to meet the Stache and Leon and Mdmtx have both attended. So why not take free publicity. Come on down to Texas yourself, you'd make money buying!

Rich

[oldjudge]

Rich-With all due respect, start a new thread.

Peter-Do you know if that count was settled or dismissed?

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill, sorry I missed your question, private parties can certainly agree to arbitrate almost any dispute, and I see no reason they could not have done so here. However, it's frequently the case that one side, or both, perceives that they will have the advantage with a jury. Parties can also enlist a mediator to help them try to resolve their dispute, and that's popular these days in certain types of cases and sometimes useful. Certainly both alternatives are more cost-effective.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't have a problem mediating but I will never voluntarily participate in an arbitration. Yes, I am sure that the fees in this case were high. But that can also occur in a long, ugly arbitration. I have a friend who is arguing an appeal of an arbitration award he won in a business dispute at the 10th Circuit next week. Its been going on for years. His fees are huge, as are the fees of the other side's attorney, I'm sure. Plus, you also get to pay the fees of the arbitrator or the arbitration panel if there is more than one. I also think that process is skewed in favor of those who participate in arbitration frequently. No thanks. I'll take a jury any day.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Rich-With all due respect, start a new thread.

Peter-Do you know if that count was settled or dismissed?

As I understand it, summary judgment was entered on that count against Corey.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't have a problem mediating but I will never voluntarily participate in an arbitration. Yes, I am sure that the fees in this case were high. But that can also occur in a long, ugly arbitration. I have a friend who is arguing an appeal of an arbitration award he won in a business dispute at the 10th Circuit next week. Its been going on for years. His fees are huge, as are the fees of the other side's attorney, I'm sure. Plus, you also get to pay the fees of the arbitrator or the arbitration panel if there is more than one. I also think that process is skewed in favor of those who participate in arbitration frequently. No thanks. I'll take a jury any day.

The commercial arbitrations I have been involved in, and I am not saying they were inexpensive by any means, greatly streamlined the motion practice and massive discovery that make complex civil litigation so inordinately expensive. It may not be true in every instance, but assuming you have a dispute that isn't going to be resolved by dispositive motion or settlement, arbitration usually will end up costing less in my opinion. Now of course as you rightly point out there may be other reasons you would still prefer a jury or bench trial, no question.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I understand it, summary judgment was entered on that count.

So Corey won that count also?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

So Corey won that count also?

No, he lost it, summary judgment was entered against him. I believe the judge held there was a triable issue of fact on all elements of lulling fraud except the reasonableness of Corey's reliance, but I can't access the opinion. It was online at one point and that's my best memory.

[frankbmd]

Are the baseball challenge rules mediated in NYC more akin to an arbitration panel or a jury trial?

I would say an arbitration panel in NYC and a jury trial in the broadcast booth.

[Leon]

Jay,
Here are the allegations in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the First Amended Complaint brought by Corey.
Corey never bought the trophy balls where there was no sale with Nash. He bought others after that. The jury felt he relied on the false sale of the balls for future purchases, with clear and convincing evidence (according to the statute that had to be overcome). My guess is that if the transcripts ever come out they will be interesting to a few, myself included.

To summarize even more -
First count, for lulling him into giving up his claim against Mastro on the balls he did buy. Judge didn't buy it.
Second count, for manipulating the market and inducing him to overpay on other stuff. Jury bought it.


Hope that helps clear a little of this mess up. It is worth repeating that appeals are expected.

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I thought the suit was about Corey recovering what he paid for some trophy balls which were alleged to have been painted with a type of paint that did not exist in the 19th century? Am I wrong, or was this part of the suit dismissed?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Count I was about different balls that Corey did buy. The "1861 Trophy Ball" and the "1853 Trophy Ball."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Leon -- the lulling fraud count did not go to the jury. The court decided it on summary judgment.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Leon -- the lulling fraud count did not go to the jury. The court decided it on summary judgment.

FIxed thanks. Now back to cards.

[oldjudge]

What happens with attorney's fees on a case like this? Is the winning side's fees paid by the losing side, or is it up to the judge to award fees if he/she sees fit? If the latter, were they awarded in this case?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

What happens with attorney's fees on a case like this? Is the winning side's fees paid by the losing side, or is it up to the judge to award fees if he/she sees fit? If the latter, were they awarded in this case?

Attorneys' fees are awarded in U.S. litigation only when the underlying claim is under a statute (e.g. antitrust, unfair or deceptive trade practice) that allows them for a prevailing plaintiff. In the ordinary civil case such as this one, each side pays its own fees.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Leon

Jay,
Here are the allegations in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the First Amended Complaint brought by Corey.
Corey never bought the trophy balls where there was no sale with Nash. He bought others after that. The jury felt he relied on the false sale of the balls for future purchases, with clear and convincing evidence (according to the statute that had to be overcome). My guess is that if the transcripts ever come out they will be interesting to a few, myself included.

To summarize even more -
First count, for lulling him into giving up his claim against Mastro on the balls he did buy. Judge didn't buy it.
Second count, for manipulating the market and inducing him to overpay on other stuff. Jury bought it.


Hope that helps clear a little of this mess up. It is worth repeating that appeals are expected.

Point #11 is the scary one, for me.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Leon

Ok there were 2, my mistake. But I am pretty sure Bill was inferring the hobbyists knew both defendants and he meant Corey and Rob not meaning members knew Rob's other company....Bill originally, probably meant to say "litigants". But I am wrong, there were 2 defendants. More to come I am sure....

Nope, by co-defendants, I meant Rob, and REA. I am not familiar with REA's history prior to the time when I joined this forum. I don't know if Rob was a founder, or not. If not, it's quite possible that long time hobby enthusiasts might have had a working relationship with somebody other than Rob at REA.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill, sorry I missed your question, private parties can certainly agree to arbitrate almost any dispute, and I see no reason they could not have done so here. However, it's frequently the case that one side, or both, perceives that they will have the advantage with a jury. Parties can also enlist a mediator to help them try to resolve their dispute, and that's popular these days in certain types of cases and sometimes useful. Certainly both alternatives are more cost-effective.

Thanks, Peter. I guess, in the same position, I'd go for a jury trial, even though it might drag on for years. In arbitration, if you're not happy with the resolution, you're stuck, as there's no appeal.

Back to the topic at hand.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Leon

Jay,
Here are the allegations in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the First Amended Complaint brought by Corey.
Corey never bought the trophy balls where there was no sale with Nash. He bought others after that. The jury felt he relied on the false sale of the balls for future purchases, with clear and convincing evidence (according to the statute that had to be overcome). My guess is that if the transcripts ever come out they will be interesting to a few, myself included.

To summarize even more -
First count, for lulling him into giving up his claim against Mastro on the balls he did buy. Judge didn't buy it.
Second count, for manipulating the market and inducing him to overpay on other stuff. Jury bought it.


Hope that helps clear a little of this mess up. It is worth repeating that appeals are expected.

Something's missing there right?
What's shown makes it look like someone consigned stuff, shilled it, never paid. Then a second person relies on those sales and sues because he overpaid? And that all the items involved were fake? Sounds like the AH is being punished for what the consigner did.
Not that it isn't the law, it just seems less than fair (I know by now that those things aren't always aligned)

[Exhibitman]

I think it is that Rob knew that the earlier sales never took but reported them as genuine sales so that bidders would rely on the bogus report in setting a bid level on the next items up for sale.

[mantlefan]

I've been away and I've read through this tonight. I get the feeling that this thread was left to die on the vine. Not sure of the intent. The "Law" is a complexity of which I have very little specific knowledge and I appreciate the explanations by all the attorneys on this Forum. I'm frustrated by all the backbiting and hijackings on this thread; I am also surprised that the OP, RL, has not chosen to comment:

We have no fancy PR firm (and don’t need one) and I can’t discuss details of a lawsuit that is filed against me because it just isn’t done, but I can assure any and all that this has NO merit.

Well, the case is over now and the verdict has been heard and I wonder what Rob's response will be...or if there ever will be a response?

I'm no lawyer, but as a doctor I like to cut to the heart (sorry) of the problem. If I squeeze the data and cut away all the bs, I see this:




A jury has determined that RL is guilty of misrepresentation in an auction-related matter. I know appeal, re-trial, yadda ,yadda, yadda,....but guys, Rob L. has been found guilty of doing something that is contradictory to the core values of his profession. That's huge. Are there other misdeeds? I don't know, but I do know that according to a court of law RL has betrayed his client on at least one occasion.

Again, nothing here at all about Brian Dwyer who is one of the most honest men I know.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Frank, when I posted about the verdict I expected more discussion as well if for no other reason than the prominence of the parties and the nature of the allegations, but perhaps because Rob L. is out of the business it is of little interest?

[Snapolit1]

Kind of a sign of the times I guess. Different sliding scales for conduct if the person charged is on your team or on the other team. If it's your friend the parish priest/rabbi or youth organization volunteer charged with sexual abuse, you disbelieve or find some reason to excuse the conduct. If it's your public figure charged with wrongdoing, the man or woman you support, you look the other way or minimize the conduct. "Matt Lauer? Oh, he's a nice guy. I can't believe he would do that. " If it's your guy caught using PEDS you continue to slam Bonds and Sosa but welcome your guy back with open arms when the suspension is over. Charge other people with wrongdoing all day long, but when the shoe is squarely on the other foot you yawn loudly, put your head down and quietly walk away.

[slidekellyslide]

I think what you have here is a lot of people who are friends with both Rob and Corey. Also the story is still a bit fuzzy as to what exactly happened. Not a peep out of Peter Nash who loves to take a swipe at Rob with every breath he takes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I think what you have here is a lot of people who are friends with both Rob and Corey. Also the story is still a bit fuzzy as to what exactly happened. Not a peep out of Peter Nash who loves to take a swipe at Rob with every breath he takes.

He is conflicted, to say the least. I wouldn't take his lack of commentary to mean anything.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I think what you have here is a lot of people who are friends with both Rob and Corey. Also the story is still a bit fuzzy as to what exactly happened. Not a peep out of Peter Nash who loves to take a swipe at Rob with every breath he takes.

What is fuzzy about it? It's right there in the amended complaint and verdict sheet, a federal jury found that Rob. L and REA committed fraud by misrepresenting that two specific items had sold at auction, with the intent of inducing Corey S. to rely on those "realized" prices in making other bids. And awarded x in actual damages and y in punitive damages. I think your first explanation is far more likely than the second. Or, the fact that Rob. L is out of the hobby.

[calvindog]

A civil verdict is significantly different than a criminal investigation followed by indictment and admission via guilty plea. Many of Corey's allegations were dismissed, none were investigated criminally and the one that did result in a verdict was achieved by a significantly lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. And it will be appealed and, unlike a guilty plea, might be reversed. It's not a surprise to me that the reaction is not as cut and dry as you'd think it should be. Hell, after all, some on Net 54 were still supporting Mastro even at sentencing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

A civil verdict is significantly different than a criminal investigation followed by indictment and admission via guilty plea. Many of Corey's allegations were dismissed, none were investigated criminally and the one that did result in a verdict was achieved by a significantly lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. And it will be appealed and, unlike a guilty plea, might be reversed. It's not a surprise to me that the reaction is not as cut and dry as you'd think it should be. Hell, after all, some on Net 54 were still supporting Mastro even at sentencing.

Clear and convincing evidence is a tough standard in and of itself. Way north of preponderance. But my point was simply I thought it would generate more discussion, not that the reaction would be cut and dried. You reacted, a few others did, but comparatively few I thought.

[hcv123]

Ironically one of the most powerful statements I have ever read:

In the face of facts contrary to ones beliefs many people ignore or throw out the facts in order to hold onto their beliefs.

Soooo, let's say RL and REA did exactly what they were found guilty of (albeit in civil court), how does that affect everyone today? What are the options I as a collector have to react to it?

I suspect there is a lot more problems from "funny business" to fraud happening all the time than is made public or found out.

For many years I didn't bid with an auction house that a good friend told me were regular shillers. I missed out on a lot of great stuff and bid with other more reputable houses (later found to be shilling - Mastro as one shining example).

Today I try to give myself the best opportunity to bid without being shilled - as often as possible, I snipe and I never bid more than I am comfortable paying.

I am heartened to see people choosing to do the wrong thing held to various degrees of accountability and support their being "outed" in our community.

It's a sad reality that has been stated before, when there is money to be made, there will be people trying to take the "easy road".

[Peter_Spaeth]

As Paul Simon put it so well, A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Clear and convincing evidence is a tough standard in and of itself. Way north of preponderance. But my point was simply I thought it would generate more discussion, not that the reaction would be cut and dried. You reacted, a few others did, but comparatively few I thought.

My practice is limited to fraud and insurance bad faith cases. I have tried two cases where the jury poured us out on the bad faith claim (preponderance of the evidence standard) and found for us on fraud (clear and convincing evidence standard). As a result, I'm not sure that most juries understand, or even care, about what the various evidentiary standards mean. What they care about, IMO, is the opinions they form early, sometimes even before the evidence begins.

If the jury think someone got screwed, they find in their favor. If they think someone acted bad, they generally find against them. Even in non-equity based cases, it is generally all about equity. That's why, at least here, plaintiffs prefer state court (where you get to voir dire the jury, tell your story, invoke the equity, and hopefully win the case right there) and defendants FAR prefer federal court, were the judge asks about six questions that provide no information about either the case or the prospective jurors, qualifies the jury panel, and tells you to make your strikes.

I have always read, and believed, that you win or lose most cases by the time opening statements are done. In a civil case, that occurs right after voir dire. I have only tried one criminal case in my life -- a murder case -- when I was a young lawyer as second chair -- so I have no idea if that belief holds true there. I didn't watch the Shanus-REA trial so I am really hesitant to make any assumptions about who was right, whether the evidence supported the verdict, whether the judge screwed something up, etc. That's why I have not commented about the result or what it might mean, although I obviously have my own opinions. But I will say that I very much believe that juries generally get it right. Not always, but mostly. My .02, which is exactly what its worth.

[Exhibitman]

It is also possible that no one really cares that much because Lifson isn't in the business any more.

[mantlefan]

I thought Lifson was forming an investment group to speculate in high end, graded cards?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by mantlefan

I thought Lifson was forming an investment group to speculate in high end, graded cards?

This appears to be the website but there is no content.

http://americanainvestments.com/index.html

[Exhibitman]

And this legal stuff is confusing to non-lawyers. The civil litigators among us may appreciate the significance of a special verdict for fraud and of a punitive damages award but odds are most N54 readers don't.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

And this legal stuff is confusing to non-lawyers. The civil litigators among us may appreciate the significance of a special verdict for fraud and of a punitive damages award but odds are most N54 readers don't.

I don't agree with that, Adam, although of course I am just speculating. But my gut tells me that if there was a civil verdict for fraudulent market manipulation and punitive damages against someone named KG, or BH, or a host of others, people wouldn't be too confused to discuss it. I think it has much more to do with the identity of the individual involved, whether because he is out of the hobby, or for other reasons.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't agree with that, Adam, although of course I am just speculating. But my gut tells me that if there was a civil verdict for fraudulent market manipulation and punitive damages against someone named KG, or BH, or a host of others, people wouldn't be too confused to discuss it. I think it has much more to do with the identity of the individual involved, whether because he is out of the hobby, or for other reasons.

Maybe some of the people on the board actually know the facts of the one allegation that went to the jury and are shocked the jury got it so wrong.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Maybe some of the people on the board actually know the facts of the one allegation that went to the jury and are shocked the jury got it so wrong.

Are you referring to yourself?

[slidekellyslide]

And still nothing From Peter Nash. Why is he not taking a jab at Lifson? Why is he remaining silent?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

And still nothing From Peter Nash. Why is he not taking a jab at Lifson? Why is he remaining silent?

Because he is in the middle of it.

[mantlefan]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Maybe some of the people on the board actually know the facts of the one allegation that went to the jury and are shocked the jury got it so wrong.

I figure the time that the jury spent hearing the case and deliberating outweighs my cursory glance at the facts.

So yes, he's guilty!!