As an update to the ongoing movie poster scandal that was first reported on last year, auction house Profiles in History has this week filed the second of two lawsuits against consignors that they allege defrauded them via the consignment of fake move posters (one-sheets, lobby cards) to their sales.The lawsuits are in addition to the FBI criminal investigation already underway, as well as additional civil lawsuits (see Poster Fraud Update: Reports of FBI Investigation Seeking eBay Victims, Multiple Civil Lawsuits).
Profiles in History has filed two lawsuits to date, both in Los Angeles Superior Court, per the jurisdiction stipulation stated in their consignment agreements.
Profiles in History vs Peg Pannell Smith, Kerry Haggard
The first lawsuit complaint (Case No. BC421306) is “PROFILES IN HISTORY VS PEG PANNELL SMITH ET AL” and was filed on 09/04/09. Defendants in the lawsuit include Peg Pannel Smith and Kerry Haggard, and the complaint alleges: Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Concealment, Negligent Misrepresentation, Breach of Written Contract, and Unjust Enrichment.
In the complaint, Profiles in History alleges:
During a time prior to June 2008 and continuing thereafter, Defendants Haggard and Smith… engaged in a conspiracy to commit fraud upon dealers in Hollywood memorabilia, auctioneers, and the consuming public, by agreeing to engage in a systematic fraud whereby the Haggard Defendants would create “fake” vintage movie posters and lobby cards… using a sophisticated process of what is believed to be high resolution ink jet technology which makes the fake nature of the product virtually impossible to visually detect, and the Smith Defendants would market the “fakes” to dealers, auctioneers, and the consuming public, representing them to be collectible authentic original vintage movie posters and lobby cards and fabricating wholly false stories about their true origin. Neither part of the conspiracy could succeed without the other.
In the complaint, Profiles in History claims that the “Smith Defendants” consigned three one-sheet posters to their Hollywood Auction 32 sale – “The Invisible Man”, “Dracula Re-Release” and “The Mummy’s Hand” – under the pretense that they were offered by a widower. The posters were sold at auction and consignor paid. The Defendants consigned nine more “fakes” in two subsequent auctions, of which six sold.
Profiles in History states that nine “fakes” in total sold for $93,750.00 at their auctions, with $81,700.00 paid to the Defendants.
Profiles in History states that they have refunded the buyers of these goods and have “incurred substantial damages to its reputation in addition to other damages“. Further, that the “Smith Defendants have refused to refund any of the moneys“.
Interestingly, per the complaint, Profiles alleges that they “learned of the involvement of the Haggard Defendants in the scheme on September 1, 2009 by way of an email erroneously sent to Profiles’ attorneys by the Smith Defendants [the text of the emails was obviously intended to be sent to Haggard]“.
The complaint alleges that the following is the content of the e-mail:
Brian Chanes called me last night to tell me this attorney would be calling me. The attorney did not call me. Instead he sent me this letter. Also, Brian mentioned to me YOUR NAME last night as a person who is known for producing fake posters. I asked “who is this guy Kerry Haggard?” And, he went onto telling me how that is what you do. I remained silent.
However, I am not going to be sued for $82,000. I am being sued for $600,000 plus attorney fees as it is, and I cannot afford to be sued by a Los Angeles court and go down this road, too. It will be the death of me. It is not fair to me Kerry. These are not my posters!
Peg Pannel Smith
The complaint then outlines the four causes of auction, alleging $1,000,000.00 in damages for each. The fifth cause of action seeks the same, plus the $81,700.00 paid to the consignor(s). Additionally, Profiles in History seeks attorney’s fees, court costs, interest on all amounts, and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Profiles in History vs Thomas Rega
The second lawsuit complaint (Case No. BC431481) is “PROFILES IN HISTORY VS THOMAS REGA” and was filed this week, on 02/08/10. The defendants in the lawsuit includes Thomas Rega, and the complaint alleges: Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Concealment, Negligent Misrepresentation, and Breach of Written Contract.
In the complaint, Profiles in History alleges:
In or about August 2009, the Rega Defendants solicited Profiles in Los Angeles County, California, about consigning several purported vintage horror motion picture posters so that Profiles would sell them at its next scheduled auction (Auction No. 37) which was to take place on October 8-9, 2009. Of most interest was what was purported to be a “Dracula style B one-sheet poster” (the “Dracula Poster”) which, if original and authentic, would be one of only three such posters known to exist, one of which was being publicly offered for $950,000.00. This poster was so rare that Profiles reproduced the poster on the cover of its auction catalog.
The Rega Defendants were not truthful. Of the 11 posters that the Rega Defendants offered and subsequently consigned to Profiles, two were withdrawn from the auction and returned to The Rega Defendants because they were determined to be fakes. Profiles subsequently discovered that the Dracula Poster was, itself, a fake. Upon discovery, Profiles leanred of the “restoration” process which The Rega Defendants accomplished. This involved taking a professionally made very fine modern re-print of the Dracula Poster, removing the bottom edges which contained the re-print designations, and enlisting one or more restorers to refinish the bottom edges to include written descriptions, including copyright information, from the original vintage poster.
The complaint also includes copies of e-mails between the “Rega Defendants” and the restorer, asking that the “missing pieces” be recreated and is described with great specificity so as to make it “a closer match to the archived photo that represents the way it was“.
In the complaint’s causes of action, Profiles in History claims damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for each of the four, based on consequences including that their “reputation has been tarnished and damaged in the movie memorabilia field and with its clients and potential clients“. In addition, with the fourth cause of action, Profiles further claims that their minimum commission on the sale of the Dracula poster would have been at least $67,500 (30% of the $225,000 estimate).
As with the other suit, Profiles in History seeks attorney’s fees, court costs, interest on all amounts, and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
“LAMP” (Learn About Movie Posters) has additional information about various related lawsuits (LINK):
Past related articles published by the Original Prop Blog can be found via the link below (Market Watch | Posters, One Sheets, Lobby Cards):
Original Prop Blog will continue to monitor these lawsuits and other developments related to the movie poster scandal at large.
Jason DeBord