'Halvarez' at Snapnames auctions uncovered

[prague7]

Ooer - this one's going to run for a while... :O

From DomainNameNews:
SnapNames User Name “Halvarez” Was Nelson Brady, VP of Engineering Bidding on Domain Names [Updated]

[Updated] According to a statement from Oversee.net’s SnapNames, an employee was found to have bid in 5% of their auctions since 2005 and in some cases arranged for a partial refund of the sales price after winning an auction. DNN also confirmed the bidder as Nelson Brady, the VP of Engineering. He was bidding under the username “halvarez”.

From Snapnames:
SnapNames User Name “Halvarez” Was Employee Bidding on Domain Names

To avoid any question about whether the company benefited from this conduct, SnapNames will offer a rebate to impacted customers, including 5.22% interest (the highest applicable federal rate during the affected time period), of the difference between the prices they paid in winning auctions, and the prices they would have paid had the employee not bid in the auctions. Impacted customers will be notified by SnapNames or its representative with instructions for the offer of a rebate.

SnapNames also has taken further action to ensure its policies regarding auctions are followed, and the company remains committed to taking whatever action is necessary to protect the integrity of its auction platform.

SnapNames deeply regrets this situation and is committed to addressing its customers’ needs quickly and fairly.

There's also a FAQ page at Snapnames

 

[globegenius]

On another note what about all the domains that people sold and this person was involved in the bidding. but won by someone else. Are you prepared to refund all the money you made by having the bids arificially driven up? Real can of worms this one.

 

[Brujah]

Does anyone know who the Snapnames user 'lightning' is?

 

[deb]

Does anyone know who the Snapnames user 'lightning' is?

Havent seen him for a few years but i remember him in the early days....i still have to go back over ALL my auctions and check bidding history. Ill keep an eye out for him between 2005-2007.

 

[gazzip]

Does anyone know who the Snapnames user 'lightning' is?

I just checked the whois on one he won in snapnames - Looks Legit to me, they own some PRIMO domains.

(won on 28-Jul-2008)

.

 

[winst]

It looks like things have quiet down a bit. People have vented and trying to figure out their next steps. I'm for one, is contemplating to join the class action or just get my rebates.

 

[Cronus]

I filled out this form yesterday and today spoke with a class action attorney who seemed pretty competent and interested in the case. This was a different firm than the one who filed the other class action today. I haven't decided for sure what to do either, but I'm not going to just let Snap keep the money, and I'm not going to sign the outrageous release either.

 

[MicroGuy]

...I'm not going to just let Snap keep the money, and I'm not going to sign the outrageous release either.

This seems like the wise thing to do for smaller amounts.

I think people who are owed less than low $xxx will have a better outcome going the CA route. But for those offered something like $xx,xxx (and up), I would think it wise to sign the waiver. Just my two cents. IMO.

 

[Domo Sapiens]

I think people are better off filing their own case (if not settleing)
Negligence and evidence quite clear...

 

[dag]

Jane Curtin: From time to time, Weekend Update presents opposing viewpoints to important issues. Now, here with an editorial reply is Miss Emily Litella.

Emily Litella: [bespectacled little old lady with squeaky voice] Uhh, what's all this fuss I keep hearing about shill bidding on romaines? Now, don't those kind of people have enough lettuce in their grocery stores as it is? I mean, do they really need more, and why do they need to make it more expensive for everyone else? Why, romaine lettuce is all over the place, even in my neighbor's garden! Those people should focus on something else, like the Internet or something!

Jane Curtin: Uh, Miss Litella?

Emily Litella: Why, it's outrageous!

Jane Curtin: Miss Litella?

Emily Litella: I can't believe... What? What?

Jane Curtin: [speaking slowly and clearly] Uh, that's "DOMAINS." Not "romaines." The news story was about shill bidding on DOMAINS, the Internet addresses being dropped and bought at Snapnames.

Emily Litella: Oh, well, well that's completely different. [squints and grins, into camera] Never mind. ...

 

[canswift]

My Halvarez exposure is limited to a few auctions where he pumped the price, but came in 3rd, so I'm out of the running for anything. However, I do wonder if some of the heavy hitters (and we know who they are) will have their lawyers negotiate a much higher level of compensation? I would not be surprised if Snapnames get pummeled in areas not currently covered by the Rusty offer. Such as pumped prices where Halvarez drove up the bidding but finished lower than second, or the bidder's cost of lawyers & accountants just to double check the Rusty offer etc etc...

 

[Peter]

I believe Snapnames should refund the money they admit to stealing from us without preconditions. But even if a limited release was acceptable, this one is completely outrageous! You can read it here. If Snapnames is telling the truth that this was the work of one rogue employee and they have new policies to prevent this from ever happening again, why are they requiring us to sign a form which:

The reason they have the preconditions is to ensure that you do not take the money they are offering then sue them anyway. By signing the agreement they are ensuring that as far as you are concerned the matter is dealt with.

Any company ho are compensating you would have exactly the same type of agreement.

---------- Post added at 01:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:56 AM ----------

This seems like the wise thing to do for smaller amounts.

I think people who are owed less than low $xxx will have a better outcome going the CA route. But for those offered something like $xx,xxx (and up), I would think it wise to sign the waiver. Just my two cents. IMO.

why do you think it would be better for people getting $xxx to go the CA route? Surely they will find that the money they receive is then taken in fees.

---------- Post added at 02:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 AM ----------

today spoke with a class action attorney who seemed pretty competent and interested in the case. This was a different firm than the one who filed the other class action today. I haven't decided for sure what to do either, but I'm not going to just let Snap keep the money, and I'm not going to sign the outrageous release either.

Just because he is interested doesn't mean to say you will get a good outcome. What knowledge does he have on domains and specifically domain auctions work? If he doesn't have the required knowledge he will probably be as good as taking a wet flannel in as your representative.

 

[Cronus]

The reason they have the preconditions is to ensure that you do not take the money they are offering then sue them anyway. By signing the agreement they are ensuring that as far as you are concerned the matter is dealt with.

They could have written the agreement to cover only the matter they are compensating us for (Halvarez). Instead they intentionally broadened the agreement to waive compensation for any further fraud which is discovered and even new shill bidding they may conduct in the future!

Any company ho are compensating you would have exactly the same type of agreement.

Wrong. Both Snapnames and GoDaddy have previously made mistakes and refunded me thousands of dollars in total without making me sign anything. The law already prevents me from suing for (and winning) money I've already been paid.

 

[thebutler]

Brady charged?

Just wondering if Brady has been charged by the cops yet? Next would be anyone who said on the record "hey we looked into it, its all good, keep on bidding".

 

[Peter]

Wrong. Both Snapnames and GoDaddy have previously made mistakes and refunded me thousands of dollars in total without making me sign anything. The law already prevents me from suing for (and winning) money I've already been paid.

And did those other mistakes get caused by fraud?

 

[maxeaus]

Peter i think microguy means that you have nothing to lose going the class action for a few hundred bucks, but with several $xxxxx or above you risk not getting any money.

Personally i think it's the opposite, i would think it better to take a settlement at some stage for $xxx and/or look for damages with $xxxxx or above.

Thats my take anyway.

 

[BlackDiamond]

So, hypothetically, what if you won in an auction that the suspected shill bidder participated in, but did not receive an offer from SnapNames? Would you have to actively join a class action lawsuit?

 

[Dave_Z]

Would you have to actively join a class action lawsuit?

You don't "have" to. Depending on the costs and what you expect to get from this, only you can truly
decide that on your own.

 

[HeyGeek]

I wasn't involved in any auctions with Halvarez, but I have read all of the threads on the different forums about this, as well as multiple blog posts, and wanted to give my 2 cents about a couple of issues people have raised:

1. On what should be done about auctions that Halvarez won: This is a tough one. I think it is incorrect to say that the losing bidder has a claim to the lost name, they basically lost the auction. Halvarez won it. If "halvarez" was refunding money to himself or not actually paying anything then that is a crime (if that is what you call it) against Snapnames, and they should attempt to get their money back from him. But the lost domain name really doesn't concern the losing bidder(s). What the losing bidders could possibly sue for is the fact that the company (halvarez) was acting deceptively and not following their own rules (no employees bidding on names etc...), but the domain name itself would probably not be part of the damages.

2. Situations where Halvarez bid the name up and then a third bidder came in for a short period and then left the first bidder holding the bag: I've thought about this one for a while, and it seems that this situation is where people are really getting screwed over, as Snapnames is not currently offering any sort refund or attempt at settlement for these cases.
The solution that I came up with is that on any auctions that Halvarez bid on that he did not win, his bids should be taken out of the picture. So if my max bid was $40,000.00 and Halvarez bid it up to $30,000.00 and then someone else came along, bid it up to $38,000.00 and I won it at $39,000.00 (all hypothetical numbers) then I should get a $30,000.00 refund (all of Halvarez's bidding taken out of the picture).
I know this scenario is skewed in the favor of the consumer, as Snapnames could argue that even if Halvarez had not bid, bidder 2 probably would have bid $38k any way, but that isn't for sure and although it would hit Snap where it hurts I think this solution would be what is fair, they WERE cheating after all.

Just my 2 cents, good luck to all of you trying to get your money back!

 

[accent]

"..... they WERE cheating after all."

You know, that is a very good point.

In this situation what is "fair" is not really what is right.

 

[HappyBunny]

They need to ensure that they are being consistent with what they are saying.

It is more important that they are consistent with the Fact.
A group of people can tell all kind of lies and if they coordinate everything closely, they can be consistent with what they are saying. But they are not consistent with the Fact.

 

[ComKid]

Sorry to veer off this track a little here but wanted to put this question up for everyone to skew....since these lawsuits are obviously starting against SnapNames aka Oversee,...does anyone think this will effect payouts now or in the near future at Domain Sponsor (Oversee)?

 

[Smith]

Sorry to veer off this track a little here but wanted to put this question up for everyone to skew....since these lawsuits are obviously starting against SnapNames aka Oversee,...does anyone think this will effect payouts now or in the near future at Domain Sponsor (Oversee)?

not at all

 

[TheBaldOne]

Changeback, I was reading RicksBlog earlier and in his entry today he touches upon the very point you raise.

 

[MicroGuy]

why do you think it would be better for people getting $xxx to go the CA route? Surely they will find that the money they receive is then taken in fees.

Considering even distribution of potential punitive damages, the risk reward ratio will be more attractive for the lower priced lottery ticket holders. IMO.

 

[stewystarr]

Just another way this affects us all is DNJournal will be putting an * by all snapnames.com sales on their lists from 2005 to 2009. For those of us who use past sales as a selling point to endusers this could be a real bad thing.

from dnjournal:

Before we run down all of the sales from the past week we want to address a historical sales issue that came up since our last column. By now you have undoubtedly heard about the shill bidding scandal at SnapNames.com. A company vice president allegedly rigged bidding in as many as 50,000 auctions between 2005 and October 2009 before the company finally discovered and reported the scheme last week.

Sales from the tainted auctions were completed at the prices that have been reported over the years but now, in an effort to offset some of the damage done, SnapNames is offering refunds to those who paid more than they otherwise would have had the shill bidder not been running up the price against them. Some will take those refunds and but others who are not satisfied with the compensation offers will not. The latter group will likely join in a class action lawsuit against SnapNames (as of press time today one had already been filed, with more expected).

There will be no way to know who received partial refunds and on what domains those refunds were issued, or even which reported SnapNames sales over the years were affected by the shill bidder. So, the way we have addressed this situation is to put a permanent notice on all of our annual YTD charts since 2005 as well as the current ones for 2009, advising readers that even though SnapNames sales listed between 2005 and October 2009 were completed at the prices shown, some buyers may have received refunds after October 2009 of a portion of the original prices they paid. We have also placed an asterisk on every SnapNames sale listed on those annual charts to refer readers to the notice in the chart footnotes.