- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 1,195,674
- Reaction score
- 59
Ownership of Muhammad Ali’s 1974 “Rumble in the Jungle” World Boxing Council title belt and of a uniform worn by Wilt Chamberlain as a high school player in 1954 are among the 11 high-value memorabilia items at issue in a new federal lawsuit brought by Collectable Sports Assets LLC (CSA) against sports memorabilia museum Sports Immortals.
CSA seeks a court order in Florida saying it is owed physical possession and legal title to the items, which the complaint claims are worth more than $21 million and are stored at the Sports Immortals museum and art gallery in Boca Raton, Fla.
More from Sportico.com
The New York-based CSA, which offers investors the chance to buy fractional shares in sports memorabilia and sells such items, and Sports Immortals disagree about their consignment relationship. Consignment agreements are sometimes used in the sale of memorabilia, art and other items of high value. They generally involve the entrustment of an item to another for display and, in some instances, potential sale.
As CSA tells it through a complaint filed by attorney Jason P. Hernandez of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, the company signed multiple contracts with Sports Immortals beginning in 2020. The contracts contemplated CSA offering investors the chance to buy fractionalized shares in the 11 items, which include a jockstrap worn by André the Giant during his famed wrestling career, a jersey worn by Michael Jordan during his 1984-85 rookie NBA season and a signed bat from Jackie Robinson from his National League MVP season in 1949.
The arrangement also allegedly involved the items being made available by CSA for sale to interested purchasers. The complaint says that in the event of a successful purchase, Sports Immortals would convey title to the memorabilia to Collectable Sports Assets. If the items weren’t sold, the contract allegedly indicated “legal title and physical possession of consigned item(s) will be transferred back to” Sports Immortals.
“But,” the complaint asserts, “the offering was successful, which means that ‘legal title and physical possession’ belongs” to CSA, not Sports Immortals.
The reference to “transferred back” is repeatedly emphasized in the complaint. CSA believes that phrase means it obtained “legal title” and the right to “physical possession” since otherwise there would be no need for a transfer back.
According to CSA’s complaint, Sports Immortals received cash after a successful offering of one of the items and retained between 51% and 80% of the equity. For example, the consignment price for the Robinson signed bat is listed at $75,000 with Sports Immortals retaining 51% of the equity. That means after a successful offering by CSA of the bat, Sports Immortals would receive $36,750 in cash, since that amount reflects 49% of the agreed consignment price (with the museum still having the remaining 51% equity).
CSA says it paid Sports Immortals a total of $557,280 for fractional share offerings, but the museum has allegedly “refused to play ball when it comes to the other part of the deal: allowing Plaintiffs to sell the memorabilia itself.”
Sports Immortals, as depicted in CSA’s narration of events, insists it is not obligated to convey title or give CSA possession of the items to display for sale. CSA maintains that since Sports Immortals retained full title to the memorabilia if an offering was unsuccessful that “logically means” CSA “would have full title if the offering was successful, which it was.”
Attorneys for Sports Immortals, which did not respond to a request for comment, will have the opportunity to answer CSA’s complaint and seek the complaint’s dismissal. CSA’s complaint tells the facts and history from its perspective and it is likely the museum will offer a distinct narration.
Expect Sports Immortals to offer a different interpretation of the contractual relationship and one where the circumstances do not warrant turning over possession and title. One possibility is that Sports Immortals disagrees about how to define “successful” offerings in the context of fractionalized investments.
U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon will preside over Collectable Sports Assets LLC v. Sports Immortals Asset Company. If Judge Cannon’s name sounds familiar, she presided over the federal criminal case against President Donald Trump over his handling of government documents.
Best of Sportico.com
Sign up for Sportico's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Continue reading...
CSA seeks a court order in Florida saying it is owed physical possession and legal title to the items, which the complaint claims are worth more than $21 million and are stored at the Sports Immortals museum and art gallery in Boca Raton, Fla.
More from Sportico.com
- Sporticast: The Next Wave of Athlete Billionaires Is Coming
- Top 50 Highest-Paid Athletes of All Time
- Highest-Paid Athletes All-Time: Jordan, Tiger, Ronaldo Lead
The New York-based CSA, which offers investors the chance to buy fractional shares in sports memorabilia and sells such items, and Sports Immortals disagree about their consignment relationship. Consignment agreements are sometimes used in the sale of memorabilia, art and other items of high value. They generally involve the entrustment of an item to another for display and, in some instances, potential sale.
As CSA tells it through a complaint filed by attorney Jason P. Hernandez of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, the company signed multiple contracts with Sports Immortals beginning in 2020. The contracts contemplated CSA offering investors the chance to buy fractionalized shares in the 11 items, which include a jockstrap worn by André the Giant during his famed wrestling career, a jersey worn by Michael Jordan during his 1984-85 rookie NBA season and a signed bat from Jackie Robinson from his National League MVP season in 1949.
The arrangement also allegedly involved the items being made available by CSA for sale to interested purchasers. The complaint says that in the event of a successful purchase, Sports Immortals would convey title to the memorabilia to Collectable Sports Assets. If the items weren’t sold, the contract allegedly indicated “legal title and physical possession of consigned item(s) will be transferred back to” Sports Immortals.
“But,” the complaint asserts, “the offering was successful, which means that ‘legal title and physical possession’ belongs” to CSA, not Sports Immortals.
The reference to “transferred back” is repeatedly emphasized in the complaint. CSA believes that phrase means it obtained “legal title” and the right to “physical possession” since otherwise there would be no need for a transfer back.
According to CSA’s complaint, Sports Immortals received cash after a successful offering of one of the items and retained between 51% and 80% of the equity. For example, the consignment price for the Robinson signed bat is listed at $75,000 with Sports Immortals retaining 51% of the equity. That means after a successful offering by CSA of the bat, Sports Immortals would receive $36,750 in cash, since that amount reflects 49% of the agreed consignment price (with the museum still having the remaining 51% equity).
CSA says it paid Sports Immortals a total of $557,280 for fractional share offerings, but the museum has allegedly “refused to play ball when it comes to the other part of the deal: allowing Plaintiffs to sell the memorabilia itself.”
Sports Immortals, as depicted in CSA’s narration of events, insists it is not obligated to convey title or give CSA possession of the items to display for sale. CSA maintains that since Sports Immortals retained full title to the memorabilia if an offering was unsuccessful that “logically means” CSA “would have full title if the offering was successful, which it was.”
Attorneys for Sports Immortals, which did not respond to a request for comment, will have the opportunity to answer CSA’s complaint and seek the complaint’s dismissal. CSA’s complaint tells the facts and history from its perspective and it is likely the museum will offer a distinct narration.
Expect Sports Immortals to offer a different interpretation of the contractual relationship and one where the circumstances do not warrant turning over possession and title. One possibility is that Sports Immortals disagrees about how to define “successful” offerings in the context of fractionalized investments.
U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon will preside over Collectable Sports Assets LLC v. Sports Immortals Asset Company. If Judge Cannon’s name sounds familiar, she presided over the federal criminal case against President Donald Trump over his handling of government documents.
Best of Sportico.com
Sign up for Sportico's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Continue reading...
