Dave

you make a comment about staying silent.

Well I will say something. At Cinenvent this year the subject of Metropolis and 
Ken Schacter came up many times...we who discussed it came up with canclusions 
and opinions, none are favourable. The fact is that lust for a piece of paper 
has put Ken's family life in a very poor situation and a lesson to be learned 
from Mario Puzo's Godfather - don't piss off someone who is more powerful than 
yourself...Ken has pissed off a big wig and Ken really doesn't have a leg to 
stand on. And the stories that have gone before about Ken and his less than 
salubrious dealings have now made him persona non grata. 

There surely is a film to be had out of this...LUST FOR A POSTER.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Potokar <[email protected]>
To: MoPo-L <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:08
Subject: Re: [MOPO] "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood 
Reporter


Great set of posts on this subject, Dave.


Thanks for your insight and offerings.


Jeff








On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:29 PM, David Kusumoto wrote:


  
* According to my sources, several business news editors in L.A., London and 
New York - are in the midst of deciding whether they too, will go forward with 
their own versions of this story.  If you do a Google search with the words, 
"Metropolis poster" - you'll already get back several pages of results, most of 
them copy-and-paste jobs of what Andy Lewis wrote yesterday for the Hollywood 
Reporter.  I expect the search results will get larger after this weekend - and 
then become humongous IF other mainstream news organizations get involved, 
including TV.  But the Hollywood Reporter was the first to publish what the 
hobby has been talking about for months.  News interviews were conducted last 
week with the key players, which included investor Robert Mannheim himself, who 
is central in that he appeared to have no recourse when he couldn't get his 
money back.  This publicity actually helps him.

* In my view, there's tremendous irony that while Sean alerted the press 
several months ago to drive traffic to his website - that this action led to 
the poster being seized - and helped Mannheim and the bankruptcy trustee - 
bolster their case against Schacter, a former MoviePosterExchange founder who 
kept Peter and Sean in the dark about Mannheim's claims.  This very publicity 
was oddly responsible for doing some "good" for an investor who was fleeced.  
(There is no legal dispute that money was loaned to Schacter.)

* I know some of you are personal friends of Schacter and most, not including 
the always vocal Rich Halegua, will stay silent.  While it was already 
unfortunate what happened to Schacter's life before "Metropolis" became an 
issue, e.g., the personal tragedy he experienced, becoming a single father, 
etc. - his decision to declare bankruptcy to avoid paying Robert - backfired 
the MOMENT "Metropolis" was used to help launch the MoviePosterExchange.com 
site.  Why it didn't happen sooner is obvious to me.  The bankruptcy 
proceedings continued uneventfully - UNTIL "Metropolis" surfaced "for sale" on 
Sean and Peter's site.  Schacter had a blind spot about the risk to his prized 
collection, even as he began Chapter 11 proceedings in December 2012.  The news 
publicity in early March 2012 was short-term glorious for the site - but within 
10 days after those stories appeared - "Metropolis" and Schacter's fortunes 
were doomed.  

* Now with the press in "full alert" mode, the story is uncontrollable.  It 
will stay that way until AFTER the poster - and the rest of what remains of 
Schacter's collection - is sold for no reserve.  There have been several 
high-profile stories I've watched unfold in the mainstream press about our 
hobby during the past 15 years.  This joins the list as being the biggest and 
will be among the most unforgettable.  But given the names involved - and its 
impact on the hobby - it's also the darkest and saddest.  Whenever you hear the 
cliché, "there are no winners in this fight," it's mostly true when the fight 
involves molesters, murderers and Madoffs.  In all other disputes, there's 
always winner and a loser in the eyes of the public.  Victims of all stripes - 
deserve to "win" something - even if it's a Pyrrhic victory. -d.  


Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:20:45 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter
To: [email protected]

 my answer to this is, and with a nod to David Koos.....

 Kenny, you may be my friend and I don't want you to be insulted...... but 
man-o-man was this stupid

 At 06:13 PM 6/23/2012, Franc wrote:
 Someone explain to me what I'm missing in this story so far. Why would Ken 
file for bankcruptcy, if he owned a repayment of a $500K loan, when it is 
well-known that his collection is worth probably close to $5 million dollars? 
Why would he risk his collection so that he could attempt to default on this 
loan?  Did he not presu,e hat his assets would be seized? FRANC


Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:56:40 -0700
  From: [email protected]
  Subject: Re: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter
  To: [email protected]

 I think "Metropolis" will be sold by Heritage with NO RESERVE and will 
generate a lot of advance publicity in the months ahead.  Why?  Because the 
bankruptcy trustee will demand whatever the market will bear.  If Heritage, for 
argument's sake, wanted to post a reserve or offer a "guarantee" - or even buy 
the poster outright for, let's say, $500,000 for a future sale - I think the 
trustee would say no.  The trustee is the "consignor" in this case, bound by 
law.  Why would the trustee accept $500,000 - or ANY price - when there's a 
potential upside to get more than that?  One never knows.  Remember, I could be 
wrong, but I seem to recall this poster was once listed on Kenny's and Peter's 
old defunct Majestic Posters site for around $2 million, a "fishing price" just 
thrown out there for the right millionaire with money to spend.  

It's not a happy situation for Kenny, but when was the last time a high ticket, 
nearly one-of-a-kind poster like this - was offered on the open market with NO 
RESERVE?  Under normal circumstances, Heritage would insist on a reserve or 
want to buy it outright as an investment for whatever price the market would 
bear, whatever Texas laws would allow.  But that would be a little odd because 
there's no doubt Heritage would want to capture the most dollars NOW - in 
relation to its planned big-budget marketing of this poster.  This is big-time 
news for the hobby. -d.


Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 08:14:31 +1000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter
To: [email protected]

 
........he estimates its value at just $250,000, a number most observers view 
as comically low.  High-end estimates put the value of the poster at more than 
$1 million, which would make it the first poster to cross that barrier in a 
public sale. Conversely, a sale at Schacter's low estimate of $250,000 or even 
any number below $690,000 would represent a softening of the poster market at a 
time when other collectibles such as movie props and rare comics are selling 
for record amounts.
 
 
 
If this poster is to be sold as part of a "liquidation sale" presumably with no 
reserve, the "comically low" estimate of $250,000.00 might be not far off the 
mark.
 
 
 
Regards
 John




Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:58:06 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter
To: [email protected]

 
 
  
I'm not surprised that the "splash" publicity surrounding the infamous 
"Metropolis" 3-sheet - and its brief offering for sale for $850,000 before it 
was suddenly pulled from Sean and Peter's MoviePosterExchange site - could lead 
to to more stories, albeit nearly four months later.  There are many 
interesting things in the article below that - while NOT NEW to hobbyists - are 
still "new news" to the rest of the world.  I find it intriguing that The 
Hollywood Reporter boldly takes credit - asserting media publicity about the 
poster - and the publication of its own story in March 2012 - led to its 
seizure by federal authorities.  The update below cuts through the tedium of 
going through reams of court documents posted elsewhere.  I now wonder if 
editors at other news organizations - might "piggy-back" or "copy-cat" the 
Hollywood Reporter - with updated stories of their own. -d.

World's Most Expensive Movie Poster Seized in Bankruptcy Case
 One of four surviving "Metropolis" posters along with valuable "King Kong" and 
"Invisible Man" posters will be sold as part of a liquidation auction.
 12:01 PM PDT 6/22/2012 by Andy Lewis 

      A rare and coveted Metropolis movie poster -- one of only four known 
surviving copies from the 1927 silent classic -- has been seized as part of a 
Chapter 7 liquidation bankruptcy case involving its owner Kenneth Schacter, a 
well-known collector. The poster will be auctioned off soon. 
      The case is being overseen by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles, 
with John Menchaca serving as the bankruptcy trustee. 
      The historical importance of the Fritz Lang-helmed movie and the rarity 
and beautiful art deco design of the Metropolis poster combine to make it “the 
crown jewel of the poster world," according to Sean Linkenback, a well-known 
poster dealer. (See the full poster below.)
      The poster had been offered for sale in March for $850,000 by 
Movieposterexchange.com. 
      Estimates vary as to what it would fetch on the open market. 
      Schacter paid a still-record $690,000 for it in 2005.
      In the bankruptcy filing, he estimates its value at just $250,000, a 
number most observers view as comically low. 
      High-end estimates put the value of the poster at more than $1 million, 
which would make it the first poster to cross that barrier in a public sale. 
      Conversely, a sale at Schacter's low estimate of $250,000 or even any 
number below $690,000 would represent a softening of the poster market at a 
time when other collectibles such as movie props and rare comics are selling 
for record amounts.
      Other key items in Schacter's collection include a King Kong poster from 
1933, which is considered by experts to be nearly as valuable as the Metropolis 
poster, and a 1933 one-sheet teaser from The Invisible Man. 
      The total collection could be worth as much as $5 million, according to 
court filings, but the exact value is uncertain because Schacter has ignored 
court orders to provide a full and complete inventory.
      It was THR's reporting about the poster being offered for sale that 
pushed Schacter from a Chapter 11 reorganization bankruptcy to a Chapter 7 
liquidation bankruptcy. 
      Schacter had filed for bankruptcy protection on Dec. 12 to avoid a 
judgment over a roughly $500,000 loan from Robert Mannheim, an investor who 
provided money for Schacter to invest in posters to sell for a profit.
      When Mannheim learned about the possible Metropolis sale via Movie Poster 
Exchange, it reinforced his belief that Schacter was trying to conceal assets 
to avoid repayment. 
      (The owners of Movie Poster Exchange were unaware of the bankruptcy case 
when Schacter consigned the poster to them for sale and immediately withdrew it 
from the site when they learned of the dispute.)
      Mannheim filed a motion to force a conversion to a Chapter 7, which the 
court granted March 12, concluding that Schacter had indeed abused the Chapter 
11 process by failing to disclose his full inventory or complete financial 
assets. 
      Schacter was required to immediately turn over his entire collection to a 
court-appointed bankruptcy trustee, which he failed to do. 
      On May 16, the court found Schacter in contempt, ordering him to submit a 
list of his holdings by May 31 or face a $2,000-a-week contempt fine. 
      Schacter submitted an inventory of his collection, but the bankruptcy 
trustee still is trying to assess whether it represents his full and total 
holdings at the time he filed for bankruptcy (to account for any sales he may 
have surreptitiously made after filing). 
      The trustee is in possession of the Metropolis, King Kong and Invisible 
Man posters but only has a list of many of the other items.
      Once the inventory investigation is complete and creditors have submitted 
timely claims, the bankruptcy trustee intends to hold a liquidation auction. 
      If the court approves the request, the trustee is likely to use Heritage 
Auctions, one of the largest auctioneers of movie posters, to conduct the 
liquidation sale.
      Given the size of the Schacter's collection, Heritage might auction it in 
waves, but no final decision has been made. 
      The liquidation is expected to begin before the end of 2012, but the 
exact date is dependent on the speed of the inventory assessment and the 
court's ruling on the application to conduct the sale.

 
 
                                          

                                          
 
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
 
___________________________________________________________________
 
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
 
 
Send a message addressed to: [email protected]
 
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
 
 
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.





Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List

Send a message addressed to: [email protected]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L

The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.

 

         Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
   ___________________________________________________________________
              How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
                                    
       Send a message addressed to: [email protected]
            In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
                                    
    The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.

Reply via email to