Mark Zaid, P.C. hired by CCG as a consultant and outside counsel.

[Mxwll Smrt]

This is not in response to any one directly, it's my observation and opinion.

 

To me, it appears that CGC is, as a business, attempting to genuinely participate in the process of understanding, finding and implementing the proper policies, process management, governance and controls required to mitigate the legal and financial risks associated with such events/ acquisitions.

 

To me it also appears that in doing so CGC is also preparing for other strategic growth strategies/ offerings or outright sale of the company. My last comment is purely speculative.

 

The truth is, IMO, that they're (CGC) accepting that they're really not as sophisticated as they like to appear to be - and possibly that's why they've hired Mark - and Mark is probably working in tandem with others.

 

That being said, if there are certain events/ actions that provide the perception of either being questionable or of conflict - one's where CGC will be viewed as compromised by motive or self-preservation, the financial downside to CGC's earnings and attendant destruction of Mark's credibility will be well documented and CGC will suffer the consequences - and another industry, just like Music and Film, will be destroyed once more by the MBA/JD/ Private Equity culture.

 

Here's what I'd like to understand from Mark here on this forum (although Im not sure what his qualifications or past performance is as an auditor despite his credentials as an attorney):

 

1. How will Mark serve as an internal assessment and analysis mechanism and advocate for the benefit of collectors at the same time? This may be nice in theory but has never worked other than in, well, comics.

 

2. How will Mark provide unbiased and unwashed information? For amplification, see the above question.

 

3. How can a growth strategy for a company which has a presence and dominates all verticals within a specific industry provide an un-compromisable mechanism free of motive? For amplification, see the above 2 questions.

 

Lastly, I wish Mark the best, but be clear, he's taken on a task greater than Sisyphus and will either be a power of example or a dire warning.

 

All the best.

[VintageComics]

CGC has always had lawyers on hand and I'm sure they consulted with them before making any large decisions especially with CI. The decision has already been made.

I don't think they're big enough to have lawyers in-house. But, of course they use attorneys. One of their attorneys probably drafted the purchase agreement for CI. I was never under the impression that it might be otherwise.

 

Dammit, I thought they used lawyers. Or advocates. Or solicitors. And sometimes barristers.

 

I never once thought they used attorneys.

I wasn't dwelling on the different nomenclature. I was saying that CGC probably does not have a lawyer employed on their staff, but I'm sure they use lawyers.

 

I know. I'm teasing you.

 

 

I didn't think they had in house lawyers either. I just worded it incorrectly.

 

 

[divad]

 

Methinks, it diffuses an otherwise thorny perception.

 

 

Here's a man who read too much Stan Lee as a kid . . .

[esquirecomics]

Let me see what I can do to address some of the additional questions/issues that have been raised.

 

First, please understand that there are going to be questions/issues that I simply cannot address. I have been hired in my legal/advisory capacity by CCG/CGC. Any communications I have with it and its employees are protected by attorney-client privilege, which I do not control. I am not trying to hide anything but I have ethical obligations that are unavoidable. That said, I will do whatever I can to maximize transparency.

 

Second, when I use the word "audit" I generically mean I will be analyzing how the company operates and implements practices and policies and provide advice for any modifications, which can be rejected or adopted as the company sees fit. I will also advise on matters relating to public relations, such as with respect to the unfavorable perceptions many have (and I include myself) with incorporating a pressing service within a grading company. While this is certainly not a mainstay of my law practice I handle these types of situations very often for defense contractors and high-profile clients whose actions are dissected, for example, in the New York Times or by Congressional committees.

 

Finally, I would not have agreed to this relationship if I believed CGC's leadership was insincere or unmotivated by a desire to respond in a positive way to the Community. Of course, CGC has its own business interests and that should not be forgotten. It does not have a legal - or even moral - obligation to do the right thing, whatever one might see that as being.

 

But having worked with CGC's leadership for years (and, again, no, I had absolutely no advance knowledge or even a hint of the purchase of Matt Nelson's company and I take no offense to that either) and gotten to know them, they are all collectors at heart just like us. And they see the strengthening of CGC as strengthening the hobby, as do I.

 

Now I have never hesitated to share, and usually publicly, my criticisms of CGC over the last decade where I have differed with or questioned its policies. Indeed, this was one of the reasons I was hired. The sincerity of my interests in helping this community are hopefully well-known and believed by the vast majority. Those views will remain while I work with CGC and advise it.

 

If I identify issues that need to be addressed, I hope that they will be. Everyone should understand, however, that it might be that no one outside of CGC ever knows about the modification. But the reason why I would have identified the issue would be for the benefit of the community and so long as it did not fundamentally conflict with a CGC business interest, which is simply a fact of life, I suspect CGC will be amenable to the change. Much of what I hope to do is ensure that sound ethical and professional practices and safeguards are in place. And I know for a fact that this is CGC's goal as well.

[esquirecomics]

BTW, I did pass on to CGC's leadership just today that it needed to speed up its certification processing time. (thumbs u

[Moondog]

I dont understand the fuss. isnt hiring someone like Zaid to smooth out any perceived legal or conflict of interest wrinkles as to merging CGC and Matt EXACTLY what people here immediately suggested would be a good thing for CGC to do?

 

and if so -- doesnt that suggest that hiring MZ came AFTER the Matt announcement when the fuss was brewing here?

 

I think, based on MZs letter here that BK has the answer as to when MZ was brought into CGC to discuss his new role... I doubt BK knew before the Matt announcement that it was coming... so therefore hiring MZ was a result of the reactions in the hobby to it.

 

This is what I think too. I'll tell you when we should start worrying - when Mark resigns.

[Moondog]

I dont understand the fuss. isnt hiring someone like Zaid to smooth out any perceived legal or conflict of interest wrinkles as to merging CGC and Matt EXACTLY what people here immediately suggested would be a good thing for CGC to do?

 

and if so -- doesnt that suggest that hiring MZ came AFTER the Matt announcement when the fuss was brewing here?

 

I think, based on MZs letter here that BK has the answer as to when MZ was brought into CGC to discuss his new role... I doubt BK knew before the Matt announcement that it was coming... so therefore hiring MZ was a result of the reactions in the hobby to it.

 

It was discussed before the Matt announcement. Mark made his decision after the Matt announcement.

 

It may have been on the table for awhile, but certainly expedited with the MN acquisition.

[esquirecomics]

I dont understand the fuss. isnt hiring someone like Zaid to smooth out any perceived legal or conflict of interest wrinkles as to merging CGC and Matt EXACTLY what people here immediately suggested would be a good thing for CGC to do?

 

and if so -- doesnt that suggest that hiring MZ came AFTER the Matt announcement when the fuss was brewing here?

 

I think, based on MZs letter here that BK has the answer as to when MZ was brought into CGC to discuss his new role... I doubt BK knew before the Matt announcement that it was coming... so therefore hiring MZ was a result of the reactions in the hobby to it.

 

It was discussed before the Matt announcement. Mark made his decision after the Matt announcement.

 

It may have been on the table for awhile, but certainly expedited with the MN acquisition.

 

Indeed, and to be quite honest it was the purchase of Matt's company by CCG/CGC that persuaded me this relationship absolutely made sense to do. I was outspoken against the creation of PCS several years ago and I would have voiced my objection as to this merger as well had I known about it.

 

That said, I completely understand why it was done from a business standpoint and my view was now that it was a done deal I could hopefully have an impact to ensure there were no actual conflicts of interest and, no less important on many levels, no perceived conflict of interest in how the pressing and grading services are operated.

[Mxwll Smrt]

Yes, you have ethical obligations that are unavoidable and have been hired in a legal capacity. Everything else is window dressing.

 

Secondly, “I handle these types of situations very often for defense contractors and high-profile clients whose actions are dissected, for example, in the New York Times or by Congressional committees.”

 

I’ve watched you post about this for sometime here and there are those who have done similar types of work for a very long time without painting a bulls eye for all to see – a standard which seems to have been ignored by most. The abilities required to operate on K street, the Hill or USDoD are entirely different than that which are necessary to safeguard the interests within this community and all too often you appear to be more interested and proficient in marketing yourself.

 

“Of course, CGC has its own business interests and that should not be forgotten”

 

Yes, they do.

 

IMO, CGC should have put together a working group of non-employees rather than hire additional counsel. No matter what you say, you have been hired as counsel.

 

Kind regards.

 

[comicwiz]

I’ve watched you post about this for sometime here and there are those who have done similar types of work for a very long time without painting a bulls eye for all to see – a standard which seems to have been ignored by most. The abilities required to operate on K street, the Hill or USDoD are entirely different than that which are necessary to safeguard the interests within this community and all too often you appear to be more interested and proficient in marketing yourself.

 

I appreciated reading the perspective in your first post in this thread, but this most recent one projects a level of snarkiness that is really unnecessary and unininspring as far as trying to maintain a level of civility and respect in a debate/discussion between moderately well-behaved adults.

 

Again, while your earlier points are well-taken, assigning a high-profile auditor brings no guarantee things will be handled better than how CGC has decided to pursue the situation. In fact, I have seen situations where giants in the auditing industry were torn to shreds simply because the situation became highly politicized, and someone needed to take the fall, and it wasn't going to be the person signing the check or the people whose positions in office needed to remain uncontested.

 

In addition to this point, past evidence also suggest that assigning this duty to someone with an intimate knowledge and understanding of how the hobby operates is a much wiser decision than the hiring of a high-rank/rate auditor who knows absolutely nothing about the moving parts of the comic hobby.

 

While I believe online temperatures towards this recent acquisition have maintained a significant level of discomfort for CCG, I have spoken with Mark on more than one occasion on the topic of business and organizational need to mind one's own reputation, and I believe you are greatly underestimating Mark's qualifications and capabilities in this regard.

[Mxwll Smrt]

There was no snarkiness meant by the comment - it's a very serious comment and Mark knows why. Secondly, I am not underestimating Mark's abilities - I am only stating that Mark, as counsel, now has a fiduciary obligation to his client - and that's the end of the story. I am also stating that I believe it would have been wiser to put together a working group with several people, Mark included.

 

Kind regards.

 

[comicwiz]

First of all, you're entitled to your opinion - there was no snarkiness meant by the comment - it's a very serious comment and Mark knows why. Secondly, I am not underestimating Mark's abilities - I am only stating that Mark, as counsel, now has a fiduciary obligation to his client - and that;s the end of the story. I am also stating that I believe it would have been wiser to put together a working group with several people, Mark included.

 

Kind regards.

 

The snark pertained to the self-marketing comment, and while it may have been meant to better ground your sentiments on the seriousness of his responsibilities, I interpreted it as an unnecessary dig at his credibility. Overall, I agree with the general sentiment of a working group being one of the ways to approach the situation, however I'm also of the opinion that a discovery phase quarterbacked by a single person, who may later procure additional resources and assistance, could prove to be an equally reasonable and effective way to approach the situation.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

There was no snarkiness meant by the comment - it's a very serious comment and Mark knows why. ......

 

Kind regards.

It did seem you like you had some good points which were thoughtfully presented, but by adding the dig, it devalued your position and gave you the appearance of one with an axe to grind.

[youmechooz]

There was no snarkiness meant by the comment - it's a very serious comment and Mark knows why. ......

 

Kind regards.

It did seem you like you had some good points which were thoughtfully presented, but by adding the dig, it devalued your position and gave you the appearance of one with an axe to grind.

lets let them go at it, it's quite refreshing to read both of their postings. they both appear to be highly intelligent individuals and the exchange between the two is like watching a movie. both reply with well prepared responses. I'm intrigued

[Mxwll Smrt]

Unfortunately, the self marketing comment is my opinion and we can agree to disagree - maybe there are a few former high ranking member of DCIS or DISA who also happen to be collectors and see his commentary here on the boards. Then again, maybe there are other attorneys from the likes of Alston & Bird LLP or Sullivan Cromwell LLP who are here as well.

 

[Transplant]

I dont understand the fuss. isnt hiring someone like Zaid to smooth out any perceived legal or conflict of interest wrinkles as to merging CGC and Matt EXACTLY what people here immediately suggested would be a good thing for CGC to do?

 

and if so -- doesnt that suggest that hiring MZ came AFTER the Matt announcement when the fuss was brewing here?

 

I think, based on MZs letter here that BK has the answer as to when MZ was brought into CGC to discuss his new role... I doubt BK knew before the Matt announcement that it was coming... so therefore hiring MZ was a result of the reactions in the hobby to it.

 

This is what I think too. I'll tell you when we should start worrying - when Mark resigns.

Agreed.

 

Unfortunately, Mark has not been retained to act as some independent auditor. He's not even as free to discuss what goes on as a consultant might be. Attorney client privilege will attach to everything. And that's too bad.

 

Unless CGC permits it, we'll never hear about any recommendation that goes unheeded or issue/concern that is ignored. I am glad that Mark will be providing advice to CCG, but it doesn't make anything any more transparent that it was a week ago.

 

CGC is under no legal obligation to be completely unbiased in its handling of books submitted first to CI, so I fail to see what the point was in hiring an attorney. Companies whose entire business model is conditioned upon their impartiality should either be transparent or at least have occasional outside auditing of their processes. I would favor the latter. Imagine if a committee of non-CGC-employees were to audit CGC's processes (to insure complete objectivity) and report back a thumbs up. It would be hard to argue with that. A compliance committee if you will. My company has one, as do most large companies in regulated areas. CGC doesn't fit that description, but they we certainly have an interest in them being unbiased.

[Davenport]

I dont understand the fuss. isnt hiring someone like Zaid to smooth out any perceived legal or conflict of interest wrinkles as to merging CGC and Matt EXACTLY what people here immediately suggested would be a good thing for CGC to do?

I don't understand all the fuss either. What could CGC possibly have to gain by introducing some hidden level of shenanigans to the System now?

 

CGC has weathered, controlled, contained and cleaned up every controversy that came their way, won every public debate that surfaced, and have a secure hobby-wide network of marketing partners, supporting fee-based services and sale venues.

 

All that's left is controlling and protecting public perception for as long as possible. It would be absolutely insane to mess anything up at this point.

 

Right? It's all out in the open. If someone has a problem with the System, don't play. Those that are comfortable can pay the various fees, take their chances, and cash in and out at will.

 

 

[OldGuy]

If someone has a problem with the System, don't play.

 

[burntboy]

 

Methinks, it diffuses an otherwise thorny perception.

 

 

Here's a man who read too much Stan Lee as a kid . . .

 

Didn't we all???

[dgarthwaite-migration]

Unfortunately TATs will be stalled as CGC works to retrofit the doors to the building to accommodate the girth of Mark's new head.

 

Wait, he was hired as outside counsel, he won't need to get into the building.

 

Actually, this move most likely just silences him from being a critic publicly. They hire him to help improve their image and if he says anything negatively in public, they have a breach of contract. I'm baffled as to why he would accept this role unless he was pressured into it. They don't actually have to take any advice he gives and they still get the benefit of silencing him. If he comes forth with any future criticism, it makes him look like a disgruntled employee.

 

DG