Quote:
Originally Posted by Spahn21
Hi David (I presume?)--
Thanks for your question.
In short, yes, the government told us last week about the code of conduct (COC) and the fact that the inclusion of the 38 lots with my name was the result of Mastro-Legendary's violation of its COC, paragraph 2--which Mastro-Legendary was obligated to enforce. Had they enforced that rule, then my bids should have been prohibited; and had my bids been prohibited, then the end result, i.e., end sale price would not have been as high as it was for those lots (same impact as a shill bid) -- and so, for purposes of determining "loss values", which I am told was the purpose of Exhibit E, the end result -- a higher price to the buyer -- is the same whether the bid is shilled or a prohibited bid (like mine). But, 1) owing to the purpose of Exhibit E -- to assess the monetary damages to lot winners/buyers -- and 2) the fact that the document was intended for internal use only for the court (and not to be released), no distinction was made on the list between shill bids and bids like mine -- or at least the bids I made on those 38 lots which M-L should have prohibited ( I can't speak to bids assigned to others).
It is my understanding that document EE is now redacted, but I'm not positive on that.
Also, I did just issue a more lengthy post which I believe also answers your above questions and in more detail, too. But if not, or if you have others, please pass them on and I'll do my best to answer them.
Thanks, David--Kevin K.
|
Kevin,
Thank you for the explanation. For what it's worth, I believe you. However, I don't think Hank's statement lent any credibility to your opening post for 2 reasons (1) the timing of his response and (2) that he prefaced his statement with "Kevin...doesn't need, nor has he requested, any support from me." Although he didn't say it, that sort of implies that you didn't know he was going to make his statement when actually the two of you collaborated together on it. Had Hank not posted, I never would have questioned your OP, but when Hank's (obviously prepared) statement immediately followed yours, it sure looks suspicious. Your statement could have stood on it's own without any help. Again, all that said, I do believe you and thank you again for coming on here and telling your side - it's a lot more than some people have done.
Regards,
David