E-Bay And Third Party Coin Grading Company's Sued

This should be interesting to see what happens, there have been a few cases working their way through the courts the decisions made could have a big impact on E-bay and the other party's in my opinion.

Online Internet auction firm eBay, the American Numismatic Association, the Professional Numismatists Guild, and the ANA president's coin firm have been hit with a lawsuit in federal court alleging anti-competitive conduct.

There are four plaintiffs: Universal Grading Service of New Jersey; John Callandrello, a UGS shareholder; Joseph Komito, a New Jersey coin dealer; and Vadim Kirichenko, a New York coin dealer.

They claim damages in excess of $75,000, exclusive of costs, interest and attorney's fees and permanent injunctive relief.

Basis for the claim is an allegation of conduct "constituting violation of antitrust policies, as well as violation of anticompetitive conduct.

There is also a claim for "civil conspiracy and trade libel" pursuant to New York common law. Under the rules of defamation, truth is an affirmative defense to trade libel, if the action complained of actually took place.

The summons and complaint was filed in late August in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, headquartered in Brooklyn, where the Hon. Charles Sifton presides. An initial conference has been scheduled for Jan. 19, 2009, at 10:30 a.m. before the Judge Robert M. Levy.

Plaintiffs claim a "conspiracy between [Barry Suppler & CO., LLC], ANA, PNG and eBay to obstruct the ability of the smaller coin grading services to participate in the coin marketplace on eBay."

The basis of the claim: In 2001, eBay "formed a group that became known as the 'Internet rules committee' made up of coin industry insiders, including Barry Stuppler, in his capacity as then ANA governor and chairman of the ANA Consumer Protection Committee (the precursor to the "Coins Community Watch Group"), Doug Winter, a PNG dealer, and R. Steven Ivy," of Heritage.

Through the effort of this group and others, plaintiffs charge, PNG, in conjunction with the Industry Council for Tangible Assets ("ICTA") and spearheaded by Stuppler, commissioned a survey of rare coin authentication and grading services, which it is claimed gave rise to false and damaging results because of insufficient data.

"Small grading companies like UGS were never referenced in 2006 Grading Service Survey," it is claimed. Thus, coupled with an eBay policy permitting "only coins that have been graded by five grading services (NGC, NCS, PCGS, ICG and ANACS, ) to be listed for sale on eBay as "certified" coins," they claim these actions are anti-competitive and illegal.

The policies, plaintiffs hope to prove, are "destroying the competitive free market by prohibiting consumers and dealers from purchasing or dealing in certified coins graded from any coin grading service except for the ones listed in eBay's policy."

Attorneys for the companies that claim to be besmirched brought it as a class action suit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated who comprise the ... "class." That includes "all companies and individuals who provide coin grading services on the market for coin auctions to the public at large and who have not been certified by eBay as 'the authorized grading company" pursuant to eBay's Counterfeit Currency and Stamps policy and who are interested in pursuing this lawsuit.' The class period is from January 2004 to the present.

It is also claimed that "eBay's policy enacted on Sept. 17, 2007 ... is per se unlawful because it limits the flow of goods in commerce."

There will be procedural wangling as to whether the ANA has a sufficient New York presence to be sued here. Presumably, as a national organization which held conventions in New York City in 1997, 1976, 1939 and earlier; had officers who resided or were present and conducted official ANA business in New York over extended periods of time, that may be hard to defeat.

PNG procedurally faces a better set of facts, as does Suppler. EBay will be interesting to watch since their presence is everywhere there is the Internet, but the law is more nuanced. ICTA, though named as a part of all this, was not sued.

For now, the case is in a legal hiatus while plaintiffs try an serve the defendants with legal process. Once that's done, there may be requests for summary relief before an answer is even filed, or the case may proceed with a different track which will be interesting to watch as it plays out. The step after that is the 2009 conference.

E-Bay And Third Party Coin Grading Companys

I thought some people might be interested in this suite that has started with E-Bay and some of the slabbing company's. This I think could get very interesting and may work. It also highlights some of the problems with Third Party Grading services/slabbing.

E-Bay Class Action Lawsuit

I thought readers might be interested in this if you were not aware of it, or if you wanted to opt out before your deadline expires.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JOHN ROCKERS, MARK RAWLING and BRIAN MORK , On Behalf of Themselves and for the Benefit of All with the Common or General Interest, Any Persons Injured, and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. EBAY, INC., et al.,

Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 1:05-CV-035930 CLASS ACTION NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION DATE ACTION FILED: 02/17/05THIS IS A LEGAL NOTICE. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED.PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.


To: All eBay users from February 16, 2001 to the present. If youclaimto have been harmed by eBay raising the eBay bidder's existing bidwhere nohigher competing bid had been made and where raising the bid was notnecessary to meet a reserve minimum you are a Member of the "Class" and your rights may be affected by the proposed class action settlement of a law suit alleging that eBay would automatically increase in certain circumstances an existing bid where no competing bid had been made and where it was not necessary to meet a reserve minimum. eBay denies any and all of the contentions and allegations of wrong doing relating to eBay's in creasing an existing bid where no competing bid had been made and where it was not necessary to meet a reserve minimum, and denies that the Members of the Class have suffered any damage. This Notice summarizes the terms of the settlement, and explains your rights and options under the settlement.

I. THE LAWSUIT

On February 17, 2005, a complaint was filed by plaintiff Glenn Block in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Santa Clara( the"Court") as a class action alleging that eBay's automatic increase in certain circumstances of an existing bid where no competing bid had been made and increasing the bid was not necessary to meet a minimum reserve was improper and artificially inflated the bids of eBay buyers, thus causing damage to eBay buyers (the "Action"). On April 17, 2006, an AmendedComplaint which, among other things, substituted Plaintiffs John Rockers,Mark Rawling and Brian Mork for the original plaintiff was filed in theCourt. The caption of the Action is Rockers v. eBay, Inc., et al., CaseNo.1:05-CV-035930.

II. THE SETTLEMENT TERMS The parties participated in mediation with the Honorable Read Ambler(Ret.) in an effort to resolve the Action. As a result of the mediation and in order to settle the allegations in the Action, eBay has agreed to cease the conduct alleged by making the following "curative disclosure" that is relative to the misrepresentations claimed by
Plaintiffs: In response to a system prompt, if a high bidder attempts to raise his maximum bid when such bidder is then between bid increments, eBay shall first disclose to such bidder the exact amount of any resulting bid increase that would otherwise occur by virtue of the bidder raising the maximum bid.By way of illustration only and using the facts set forth in paragraph 23 of the Complaint, upon raising the maximum bid once plaintiff had reached his existing bid maximum of $111.00, eBay would disclose whether raising the maximum bid level would result in the $111.00 bid being raised to the next bid increment over the last competitive bid of $110.00 and, if so,specify the exact amount to which the bid would be raised - that is, $112.50.

In addition, eBay has agreed to pay the sum of $2.1 million("Settlement Fund"). The Settlement Fund will be distributed to one or more federally tax exempt charities chosen by Plaintiffs' Counsel and approved by the Court. None of the charities selected by Plaintiffs' Counsel and approved by the Court shall be directly or indirectly affiliated or associated with Plaintiffs or their counsel. Based on information provided by eBay to Plaintiffs' Counsel, the $2.1 million is estimated to be approximately 50% of the claimed damages and all other economic harm allegedly incurred by Members of the Class. Distribution of the Settlement Fund to charitable organizations is appropriate because any attempt to distribute the Settlement Fund to individual Members of the Class -whos eaverage recovery would be less than $1.00 - would result in administrative costs that would consume any settlement proceeds. eBay has also agreed to separately pay Plaintiffs' Counsel$800,000for past and anticipated future attorneys' fees and expenses regarding the Action, subject to Court approval ("Attorney Fees"). This amount was negotiated and agreed to after the substantive provisions of the settlement were reached and after the memorandum setting forth the material terms of the settlement was executed. Plaintiffs' Counsel, subject to Court approval,intend to pay up to $104,300.00 and $150,000.00 to Glenn Block (orGlennBlock, P.C.) and Daniel Block (or DSB Consulting, Inc.), respectively,for their expert services in this Action from the Attorney Fees. Glenn Block was the original plaintiff in the Action and provided technical assistance to Plaintiffs' Counsel regarding eBay's auction practices, the allegations in the Action, the calculation of damages and economic harm, and due diligence.Daniel Block is Glenn Block's son and provided computer, programming and data mining expertise that was otherwise unavailable to Plaintiffs in a timely and efficient manner. Their expertise was unique and necessary for the successful prosecution of the Action.

eBay shall also separately pay, subject to Court approval, the three Plaintiffs named in the Amended Complaint, $1,000 to reimburse them fortheir time, costs and efforts in representing the Class. III. CONSEQUENCES OF THE SETTLEMENT If the Court approves the settlement, a judgment will be entered dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice against eBay and all of its past and present officers, directors, shareholders, employees, insures, agents,representatives, partners, joint-ventures, parents, subsidiaries,affiliates, and attorneys (the "Released Persons"). This means that Members of the Class will be barred from bringing their own lawsuit against any of the Released Persons relating to eBay's alleged practice of raising an eBay bidder's existing bid where no higher competing bid had been made, and where raising the bid was not necessary to meet a reserve minimum. If you do not want to be barred from bring your own lawsuit on such claims, you must validly and timely request exclusion from the Class, as set forth below.

IV. YOUR OPTIONS If you are a Class Member, you have the following options: (A) Participate in the settlement. To participate in the settlement, you do not need to do anything. If the Court approves the settlement and the judgment is not successfully appealed, the terms of the settlement will be implemented. (B) Request exclusion from the Class and settlement. If you wish to be excluded from the Class and the settlement, you must send a written request for exclusion by regular or express mail, so that it is postmarked no later than January 30, 2007. Your exclusion request must include (1)yourname, address, and telephone number; and (2) a statement that you wishto be excluded from the Class and settlement in Rockers v. eBay, Inc., etal.,Case No. 1:05-CV-035930. If you submit a valid and timely exclusion request,you will not participate in the settlement. You will not be bound by the judgment dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice as to Released Persons,and your claims will not be released. (C) Comment on the settlement. If you remain in the Class,you may comment in support of or in opposition to the settlement. To do so,you must, no later than January 30, 2007, file your comment or objectionwiththe Court and send copies by regular or express mail to Plaintiffs'Counselat the addresses below: The Court: Clerk of the Court SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Civil Division 191 North First Street San Jose, CA 95113 Plaintiffs' Counsel: Jeffrey D. Light LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Your written comment or objection must include (1) your name,address,and telephone number; (2) information sufficient to establish your membership in the Class; (3) a statement of your views; (4) any supporting documentation you wish to submit; and (5) a reference to Rockers v.eBay,Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-CV-035930. If you wish to appear and present your objection orally at the fairness hearing described in Part V below,your written objection must contain a notice that you intend to appear and be heard, a statement of the positions you intend to present at the hearing,and any supporting arguments. You may, but need not, appear in the lawsuit through your own attorney. If you do so, you will be responsible for your own attorney's fees and expenses.

V. FAIRNESS HEARING A hearing will be held on February 13, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable Jack Komar, Superior Court Judge, in Department 17C at theSanta Clara Superior Old Courthouse, 161 North First Street, San Jose, California 95113. The purpose of the hearing will be to determine (a) whether the proposed settlement including the attorneys' fees and expenses and service awards that eBay has separately agreed to pay should be approved as fair,reasonable and adequate and should be granted; and (b) whether the Action and the claims of the Members of the Class should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the settlement. This hearing may be rescheduled without further notice to the Class. You may attend the hearing if you wish,but are not required to do so to participate in the settlement.

VI. HOW TO GET MORE INFORMATION You can get more information by contacting Plaintiffs' Counsel at the address listed in Part IV (C). Complete copies of the settlement agreement and all other pleadings and papers filed in the lawsuit are available for inspection and copying, during regular business hours, at the Office oftheClerk of the Court, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, Civil Division, 161 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: November 8, 2006 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA