Again, I'm missing something here. After his collection is sold in a bankrupcy proceeding to pay his debts and whatever damages there are from this lawsuit, shouldn't he be able to come out of bankrupcy? I thought his collection was worth millions of dollars? FRANC
-----Original Message----- From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of John Waldman Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 4:02 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter I wonder why Ken didn't just sell some posters and give the investor he owes the $500,000 too back his money. Now the guy is screwed. He's not going to have 2 cents to rub together. JW From: David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 3:44 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter Thanks, Adrian. That's good to know. In fact, I privately replied or talked to several people during the past few days about this - and the consensus is in line with what you wrote, especially when one considers a long history of un-related "escapades" involving Ken dating back many years. On one hand there's temptation among his pals to feel sympathy for his plight, but on the other - Ken's history of strange dealings, culminating with this latest incident, trumps feeling too sorry for him. One person observed that in his opinion, this scandal was equal or greater in notoriety in terms of $$$ - than the Haggard case, even though the latter involved more victims. Regardless, I know many people will never forget this - and will be reminded of it again when his collection is liquidated with much fanfare/marketing/publicity possibly later this year. And then after that's over, he'll forever remain on the dubious list of titanic embarrassments to this hobby. - d. Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 06:37:07 -0400 From: jboh...@aol.com Subject: Re: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU 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. Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 14:08:37 -0700 From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Thanks, Jeff. As I've told others who wrote me privately today, in the future, I'll only let the group know if any news stories surface which reveal new/previously unpublished info. I think the NY Times, WSJ, LA Times, the Daily Mail, the Guardian, etc., will NOT publish anything unless they can find a "new angle" beyond what was published by the Hollywood Reporter. BTW, "Metropolis poster auctioned" or "Metropolis poster seized" are better phases to enter into search engines - to get a lot of results and commentary from bloggers about this story... -d. Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:07:54 -0700 From: jpotok...@ca.rr.com Subject: Re: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Great set of posts on this subject, Dave. Thanks for your insight and offerings. Jeff Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:29:29 -0700 From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU * 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, except the always vocal/fearless 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 - 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 so-called "Pyrrhic victory." -d. Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:20:45 -0700 From: sa...@comic-art.com Subject: Re: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU 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: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU 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: johnr...@moviemem.com Subject: Re: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU ........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: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com Subject: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU 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 Metropolis Title Image - H 2012 <http://thr4.pgmcdn.net/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumbnail_570x321/201 2/03/metropolis_large_a_l.jpg> 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 theFritz Lang-helmed movie and the rarity and beautiful art deco design of theMetropolis 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 <http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/metropolis-poster-record-leona rdo-dicaprio-298114> 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. <http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/Book%20covers/m etropolis_large_html.jpg> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu 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: lists...@listserv.american.edu 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: lists...@listserv.american.edu In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
