Bank says Durham had no right to sell Duesenberg

A legal brouhaha over the recent auction of a Duesenberg automobile by Tim Durham has taken a new twist, with Durham’s
bank charging the financier didn’t have the right to sell the car in the first place.

The bank, New York-based
Webster Business Credit Corp., said in newly filed court papers that the car serves as collateral for a $3.1 million loan
to U.S. Rubber Reclaiming Inc., a Mississippi firm owned by Durham.

Webster said U.S. Rubber has defaulted on
the loan. Loan documents specifically “prohibited the sale, auction or transfer of the antique automobile,” according
to the filing this month in U.S. District Court in Fort Wayne.

A furor erupted soon after the car, a 1930 Duesenberg
built for publishing scion William Randolph Hearst, fetched $2.9 million at a September auction at the Auburn Cord Duesenberg
Automobile Museum in Auburn.

The winning bidder, James F. Scott of Charlottesville, Va., sued in December, charging
Durham and other defendants committed fraud by manipulating the auction price.

The suit says the other bidder—Mark
Hyman, owner of Hyman Limited Classic Cars in St. Louis—consulted throughout the auction with Michigan businessman Donald
Lyons. Scott charged he later learned both men “were stakeholders and/or owners of the automobile.”

bidding up the price of the automobile to $2.9 million, without disclosing to the plaintiff that there were the owners or
had a material financial interest in the proceeds of the sale, the sellers intentionally, artificially and surreptitiously
inflated the price of the automobile,” the lawsuit charged.

Lyons—owner of home-products maker Lyons
Industries Inc. as well as mayor of Dowagiac, Mich.—issued a statement late last month saying that prior to
the auction he struck a deal to buy the same Duesenberg for $1 million.

Because the car already was slated to be
part of the museum’s annual Labor Day auction, Lyons said he agreed to allow the sale to be finalized there—assuming
he was the high bidder.

“Nobody expected that anyone would bid much more than $1 million,” Lyons said
in his statement. “We thought we were being nice and doing a favor to the museum to agree to do it this way.”

The final auction price was $2.3 million higher than what Durham paid in 2003. After bidding concluded, Lyons and
Hyman talked with Durham, who agreed to allow the two men to share in the proceeds of the sale, according to Lyons’

Scott said in his lawsuit that he never received title to the car, even though he paid the full $2.9

Webster’s court filing says bank hold the title in its safe, and isn’t about to relinquish

Scott named Webster in his suit because of its security interest in the vehicle. In its response filed Jan.
4, Webster went on the offensive and filed a counterclaim. It says Scott now has the car but must return it to the bank.

The suit says Webster negotiated the collateral agreement with Diamond Investments, the Durham company that holds
his automobile collection.

“Unbeknownst to WBCC, Diamond Investments and others attempted to convert the
antique automobile by entering into a series of unauthorized transactions designed to hinder, delay and defraud WBCC and to
avoid WBCC’s properly perfected security interest and lien,” the counterclaim says.

Ray Seach, an Indianapolis
attorney representing Durham, said he could not comment until he files a response to Webster’s allegations in court.

The Duesenberg lawsuit is the latest in a string of legal challenges confronting Durham, 47, who’s
facing U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission investigations over transactions
he helped orchestrate at Akron, Ohio-based Fair Finance Co. and Dallas-based CLST holdings inc.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Indianapolis alleged in court papers in November that Durham operated
Fair Finance as a Ponzi scheme, using the sale of new investment certificates to Ohio residents to repay prior purchasers.

He and other insiders have borrowed more than $168 million from Fair. The company, meanwhile, owes holders of investment
certificates more than $200 million—a debt many purchasers fear the company can’t pay.

Other parts
of Durham’s business empire also are financially strained. Muncie-based First Merchants Corp. filed a lawsuit in Fort
Wayne in December charging that Sturgis, Mich.-based Classic Manufacturing Inc., a trailer-maker owned by Durham, defaulted
on nearly $1 million in loans.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Story Continues Below

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our updated comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}