Sotheby's Pursues Unprecedented Legal Strategy for Ancient Bronze Horse
The ancient Greeks created the relics of the past, but Sotheby's claims the future, at least with respect to one treasured antiquity.
June 26, 2018 at 10:01 AM
5 minute read
The ancient Greeks created the relics of the past, but Sotheby's claims the future, at least with respect to one treasured antiquity. Engaging a novel strategy, Sotheby's proactively filed suit against Greece's Ministry of Culture and Sports of the Hellenic Republic seeking a declaration that Greece does not own a Corinthian-style, bronze figure of a horse dating from 900–700 B.C.E., which Sotheby's hoped to sell at auction. The Metropolitan Museum of Art describes a similar bronze horse figure in its collection as epitomizing the “clarity and elegance” of the Greek Geometric age “at its most accomplished.”
The case is reported as the first time an auction house has pursued a determination of ownership against a government. Sotheby's filed the action in conjunction with the Barnet Family Trust. The trust hired Sotheby's to sell the bronze horse at auction. Sotheby's prepared marketing and promotional materials advertising the sale of the bronze horse, prompting the Ministry of Culture to send a letter demanding its repatriation to Greece. Sotheby's and the trust responded with their lawsuit. The court appointed Sotheby's as a substitute custodian pending a resolution.
In the complaint, Sotheby's alleges that the Barnet Family Trust acquired the bronze horse after the deaths of the trust's settlors. The settlors purchased the bronze horse “in good faith” in 1973 from Robin Symes, an art and antiquities dealer in London who was later accused of trading looted antiquities. The settlors brought the bronze horse into the United States in 1973, where it has remained since. Sotheby's listed the bronze horse's originating provenance as a 1967 auction in Basel, Switzerland. Sotheby's does not provide an explanation of when, how, or under what circumstances the bronze horse left Greece, but states that Greece has no property interest in the bronze horse under the United States' implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention through the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA).
But the CPIA may saddle Sotheby's stride. The CPIA only covers cultural property stolen from a public or religious institution after January 1983. Here, the settlors purchased the bronze horse in 1973, well before the CPIA's effective date. Even if the bronze horse was exported from Greece after Greece claimed ownership over “all cultural objects” in 1932, there is no evidence at this stage that the bronze horse was stolen from, much less part of, a public institution's collection. In addition, the CPIA prohibits importation of stolen cultural property whereas Sotheby's suit is concerned with ownership of the bronze horse. Consequently, Sotheby's should tack up its claim with common law theories that support its property interest.
Still, Greece may file a counterclaim under a common law theory, such as conversion or replevin, to seek return of the bronze horse. For example, in Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg & Feldman Fine Arts, Inc., a third party took four sixth-century Christian Byzantine mosaics from a Church in Cyprus without church or state authorization during a civil war. The defendant, an American art dealer, purchased the mosaics in Amsterdam. Many years later, the church brought a replevin action in Indiana where the art dealer kept the mosaics. The Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court decision, holding that the mosaics were removed without church or state authorization, and that the defendant had no valid claim of title or right to possession of the mosaics despite his good faith purchase. Greece will likely argue that Sotheby's good faith possession is irrelevant to the determination of rightful ownership.
New York—where Sotheby's maintains the bronze horse and seeks a declaration of ownership—recognizes causes of action for both replevin and conversion. Should New York law apply to determine title, courts favor the rights of the original owners against subsequent good-faith purchasers of stolen property.
Many legal scholars, such as Lawrence M. Kaye, Hannah L. Bauxbaum and Stephen K. Urice, argue that the United States' legal framework addressing cultural property is in need of a significant overhaul and that civil lawsuits should be subject to a comprehensive and consistent federal law, rather than determinations based on common law theories that may differ state by state. Although there are varying legal frameworks, both statutes and common law concerning stolen cultural property tend to embrace the United States' stated policy: illegal traffic in stolen cultural property is unacceptable, particularly where it is clear that the cultural property belongs to a public or religious institution.
However, given that the bronze horse has been in the United States since the 1970s and was sold at a reputable auction, Greece faces the onerous burden of producing evidence of illegal exportation of the bronze horse after Greece's declaration of ownership of cultural objects in 1932. Until then, Greece's repatriation claim may place behind Sotheby's win.
The case is Barnet v. Ministry of Culture and Sports of the Hellenic Republic, No. 18-cv-04963-KPF (S.D. N.Y.)
Lindsey Lazopoulos Friedman is a litigation associate at Colson Hicks Eidson in Coral Gables.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Mediators for the Southern District of New York Honored at Eighth Annual James Duane Awards
- 2The Lawyers Picked by Trump for Key Roles in His Second Term
- 3Pa. High Court to Weigh Parent Company's Liability for Dissolved Subsidiary's Conduct
- 4Depo-Provera MDL Could Be Headed to California
- 5Judge Holds New York City in Contempt Over Conditions at City Jails
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250