Perry, Certainly there must be lots of commotion going in. I can figure on 3 legal venues (Ohio, London and Florida) with the following sides in some or all of the venues (Joe Ford, Kleve-Lawson, Gardner, Swaters, Bonhams, bidder from the auction). Just because there are no posts here likely has little relationship to what is going on by the participants. There have been quiet periods repeatedly since this all started on F-chat a few years ago. But, like you I am curious. Jeff
why even mention Bonhams... they have nothing to do with anything except to facilitate a sale, they merely are an agent for the sellers, as agreed by the sellers....it could have been any of the other auction houses, had they been chosen...or E Bay or through private sale had they decided to go in that direction... Bonhams was entrusted to perform a function, limited in scope, acceptable to parties involved... in their arrogance or total incompetence exceeded the scope of their authority as allotted by the judicial system. The most simple of which was a lapse in the authorized time in which to perform... the bell rang ending their appointment... instead of stepping aside to await further instructions, they proceeded to go through mechanizations as if they were in a position to have authority... clearly violation of even the simplest of contracts, to effect a sale without authority and lacking any valid documents to convey the property... simply stated Bonhams appears to have acted as idiots with total disregard of what they had in hand..all the while being observed or colluded by their councils in effecting a sale... it appears as if Bonhams, having lost all authority, was driven by some agenda to proceed balls out at all cost... events smack of nefarious motives in moving ahead with the sale.... in a matter of a few weeks there is more court activity scheduled which may expose and correct the events leading to the sale
There were four parties to the sale agreement that instructed Bonhams. Swaters, Gardner, Lawson and Ford. Swaters is getting 50% and Gardner 25% (half of Fords although he is claiming the lot) making a majority in favour of proceeding with the sale. I find it hard to believe that an auction house such as Bonhams would proceed on their own without instruction and legal advise what ever Ocean Joe may claim
I'd say Gardner sitting in the car grinning like a monkey might be your first clue to ponder, as to Bonham's motivation to proceed with what, in time, may turn out to be a major legal error. At the least, a PR nightmare.....
Last time I was with this many lawyers in a room, there was a body on the floor to talk about....figuratively, not literally.
See attached. Bonhams Fencing Fine Art Stolen Goods ?Sothebys Expert Witness Files? *** BELGRAVIA CRIME*SCENE*IMAGES * CARROLL*TRUST *** Withers Bergman Organised Crime Extortion Bribery Case Image Unavailable, Please Login
"Sources confirming" allegations does not change my view that they will be more interested in their reputation
I don't know if any of you remember, but a few years ago, one of the Auto Union Type D cars was up for sale. (I think there were only 4 or 5 of these to have been constructed.) This was the subject of a documentary on TV. Napolis was featured and was in the video. Anyway, Christie's pulled the auction because they could not verify its racing history. Note: Not a problem with Title, but rather a problem with racing history. Christie's looks great for having the discipline and ethics to check things out. Bonhams looks like a bunch of punks. If there were any question--any question whatsoever--Bonhams should have waited. Instead, they have to life with the fallout.
This was 1 of the 2 cars PK found, IIRC. C&G (a stellar firm) in UK did the restoration work. It may have been the racing history, or that may have been the more palatable way to say it.. I was told at the time that the real issue was actual ratio of historic car to new parts VS claimed ratio (in other words, how much of the car was 'real'). At the end of the day, it is as you say: to Christie's credit that they put the sale on hold.
Bonhams withdraw Roman sculptures with 'Medici link ' from auction Bonhams auction house acts after claims that 2nd century AD artefacts were taken during illegal excavations. Four Roman sculptures are to be withdrawn from auction tomorrowamid claims that they were stolen from archaeological sites overseas.Photographs seized by police suggested that the sculptures - funerary busts and a marble statue of a youth from the second century AD - were illicitly excavated, archaeologists told the Guardian. A spokesman for Bonhams auctioneers said: "Whenever a serious question is raised about an item's provenance we withdraw it from sale pending an internal investigation. We take rigorous care to ensure that we only sell items that have a clear provenance. "Dr David Gill, reader in Mediterranean archaeology at Swansea University, said that the four antiquities bore soil traces that indicated they were excavated during illegal digs. Images in the Bonhams auction catalogue show the same sculptures cleaned and restored.Archaeologists remain concerned about illegal trading of antiquities and
That Auto Union at Christies Retromobile had been mis-represented by the consignors. Happens all the time! It had zero to do with any potential and/or pending lawsuits. Consignors are often mis-informed and/or have great tendency to mis-represent objects. It is all about $$$$$$!! Same happened with the Porsche 917 K that David Gooding originally had planned for his sale in Pebble Beach August 16/17, 2014. Total mis-representation and fortunately David found out early enough and stopped it all (car withdrawn from auction). It is called doing the home work or due diligence. Or remember that case with the Mercedes 540 K (I think it was) that 2 years ago sold at auction in USA to The Netherlands and then was confiscated during the Techno Classica Essen in Germany (Nazi problems). The consignor of that car knew exactly about the origins of the car and potential problems (Nazi/WW2) and apparently "forgot" to inform auctioneers and/or potential bidders. In almost all cases you can blame the consignor and usually NOT the auction house who act only as an intermediary. Marcel Massini
still the underlying actions are not explained... Bonhams documents for the sale have expired... they are notified formally by withdrawals of authority to stop the pending sale, Bonhams documents / authorities won't even make good toilet paper at that point...regardless Bonhams moves forward ( without the benefit of valid documents or authority ) with the pending sale when they should have been standing down waiting for further instructions... then the Snotti character shows up in the reaining hours before the sale and makes his demands... the European contingent quickly capitulates to Snotti's demands. A multimillion dollar agreement is negotialted in hours before the sale... How thoroughly could have the Snotti character and his documents been vetted and how easily multimillions of money were conceded... limited time is a key element to perpetrating any scam and there certainly wasn't any here... any dumb ignorant would have seen the warning flags, yet the esteemed European contingent and Bonhams, with supposedly well qualified council, folded like a house of cards... all of which leaves the only possible conclusion that nefarious intent was the motiviation to continue the sale
You seem to have a very serious axe to grind with Bonhams. What did they do to you? And as mentioned earlier already, do not expect Bonhams to post anything on the internet or ferrarichat. AFAIK they are not in the entertainment industry. Marcel Massini
it's an observation of the veracity of the "players" as this saga unfolds, NOT who they are... the participants of this forum offer opinions as they see them with no malice, kind of like watching a sporting event, questionable actions occur, not all of which the referees are able to make a call on, nor all the fans can agree with, yet the fans in the stands opine their pleasure or displeasure as the events of the game unfold... no different than your opinion defending your player...
Bonhams was put on notice, at least 3 times, that serious litigation about the car's ownership and had knowledge that there were lawsuits in 2 countries about the title. With that in mind, they took a serious risk in selling the car, and we know that other auction houses have acted much better in similar situations.
I accept this but they we're put on notice by only one party to an agreement and clearly proceeded with this knowledge. Accordingly it is most likely the other parties supported the sale proceeding and Bonhams simply acted as instructed. It has already been said that we are only getting one side of this story and can only guess on the other sides view. Based on my own experience and knowing the motoring department, I believe Bonhams are a professional and reputable auction house and do not act unilaterally.
I hear that all parties agreed to the sale of the Ferrari. One person did not Ocean Joe . Ford did all he could to delay the September 2013 sale by stalling the delivery of the parts. After the March 2013 Bonhams signing and once Thor Gottesman came in , Ocean Joe was caught red handed practicing law without a license . The road was paved for Ford to get zero out of this Swaters/Gardner the only thing he could do was kill the sale. He tried, but did nothing in the jurisdiction of the Bonhams contract. Ford conspired and reeled in Kristie Lawson, together they formed a fraud. Lawson is promised 10% from Ford, and according to her lawyer already sold 100% of the Ferrari to Gardner. The Bonhams agreement set the selected forum as the High Court of London. UK court jurisdiction rides all in the agreement including the choice of jurisdiction. The Ohio court declared that also, and closed the Ohio Ferrari case before the sale. Ford appealed that decision and that appeal was motioned for dismissal on merits. The only lawsuit that is open is the fraud case against Lawson and Ford, and Fords sons nothing to do with the Ferrari. Had Ford wanted to legally stop the sale, and void the Bonhams agreement, he would have had to do in in the London Court. That would have meant placing a large Bond to secure his right to stop the sale and that cash bond would protect Swater/Gardner/Bonhams and Kleve against damages Ford caused in stopping the sale. Ford did nothing but yell fire in the crowded theater. That did not work, and Bonhams conveyed the car under London Law. The only Fire warnings were cancelling POAs and missing a sales date in 2013 both not materially relevant in a London Court by any stretch, considering Ford caused both issues in the first place. There was no need for a Power of Attorney or an Ohio title transfer mainly because once a car leaves the USA the title is automatically not valid for a conveyance by law. Bonhams transferred title by a standard auctioneers conveyance on the signed agreement that all parties signed on to. As Fords position in the case is considered fraudulent , he has no ownership to transfer anyway. Fords only last Hail Mary is the same delay tactics he knows all to well according to court records. I think it time to start a Poll !
Some points and questions: 1. All Parties means all. It does not mean most or all except one party. You fail to prove that Joe Ford does not remain a legal party this situation. 2. You claim that Kleve-Lawson sold her interest in 0384 to Gardner. When did this happen as that would have been a significant point that was excluded in her husband's post. 3. If everything that occurred at the auction was all without question then address the stories how the successful bidder in Ohio has his legal counsel involved questioning the transaction. 4. It appears strange that you find Ford & Kleve-Lawson to be acting fraudulently but find no issue with Gardner agreeing to the payoff of a last minute title claim. Jeff
"..mainly because once the car leaves the USA the title is automatically not valid...." Under a reported THEFT??? FBI involvement?? This is where your train leaves the rails, Chris.....I mean "Max"...
You raise good points. Here is evidence that this board needs to see to put to rest the claim that Lawson sold 100% of her interest: 1) Lawson did enter into an agreement ("Change #3")to sell to Ford her 30% (thus Ford is at 100%) and Lawson would retain a 10% lien, 2) Change #3's paragraph 3.7 (a condition precedent) required Ford to have his attorney get Judge Nadel's approval so as to not violate the 2010.04.23 Status Quo Order, 3) Ford and Lawson thought Taft (Ford's attorney) obtained the approval, 4) Months later Ford and Lawson find Taft failed to get approval, 5) On 2011.08.02 Judge Nadel orders Change #3 to be null and void, while also respecting the 2010.02.25 Option and Sales Agreements, thus Ford owns 70% and Lawson owns 30% 6) No one, including Swaters, objects to that 2011.08.02 Order. 7) On 2012.05.08 Herbert Haas, attorney for Lawson, Ford, and for financier Gardner (F Chat post #1267), files the new Ohio title with the Court - it lists Ford and Lawson as owners, consistent with the 2011.08.02 Order. 8) No one, including Swaters, objects to that 2012.05.08 Haas filing. Thus, the present Ohio title properly reflects the Lawson/Ford ownership because the Court declared Change # 3 as "null and void" while the Court expressly validated the 2010.02.25 OA and SA wherein Ford acquired his 70% and Lawson retained 30%. FYI, both Lawson and Ford, the only Court recognized owners, informed Bonhams very early on that there should be no auction and could be no sale. Swaters merely represented a challenge to the ownership of Lawson and Ford, a challenge based on Swaters' 1999 documents -- documents which Swaters' forensic document expert concluded were forgeries. Below are some docs to help keep the discussion on point. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
What are the next scheduled hearings? Where and with which parties on which topics? Has the successful bidder filed anything yet?
Interesting how someone that you consider as not directly involved, Ocean Joe has a lot of documentation. Not only does he have it, but he produces it. Still have a hard time getting past the fact the car was stolen. And a car this important would have to be know by Ferrari experts as to it's disposition. Perry
