| Sotheby's
Was Sued For Over Ancient Chinese Wine
Vessel Now Briefs on Whether to Sell It
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell
Book
BBC-Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
NY
Mag
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Dec 2 – Sotheby's agreed to
auction of the Zhou Zha Hu,
described as an important
ritual bronze wine vessel from
the 10th Century BC.
But citing
a cloud on title it refused to
conduct the auction or, the
subsequent legal complaint
says, to return the vessel.
On June 6, 2022
U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Judge Valerie E. Caproni began
an in-person bench trial in
the case. Inner City Press
went and covered
it.
Photos of
the vessel were shown, and the
two phoenixes on it. It was a
dowry gif, then its owners
became poor, it was said, and
wanted to sell it.
The June 6
witness bought it, then
arranged to try to auction it.
Sales were in cash, up to
$600,000.
On July 15, Judge
Caproni ruled "The Court is
inclined to find the Shanghai
Judgment, as submitted as an
exhibit to this filing, as
admissible pursuant to Rule
902(3) of the Federal Rules of
Evidence. But the Court will
grant Su and Wang one final
opportunity to reply to Yeh's
arguments on the admissibility
of the Judgment. Any such
reply is due no later than
Friday, July 22, 2022. SO
ORDERED. (Signed by Judge
Valerie E. Caproni on
7/15/2022)"
On December 2,
Judge Caproni ruled "that the
parties are ordered to brief
the following issues: (1) Who
has the right to possess the
Vessel? In briefing this
issue, the parties are
reminded that it is the law of
the case that Su is not a bona
fide purchaser of the Vessel
and that Yeh owns a 50%
interest in the Vessel. See
Opinion, Dkt. 278 at 41. (2)
Should the Court order the
Vessel to be sold and divide
the net proceeds of the sale
between the parties? See id.
Yeh's opening brief is due on
February 17, 2023, and Su and
Wang's response is due on
April 21, 2023. Yeh's reply is
due on May 12, 2023, and any
sur-reply from Su and Wang is
due on May 26, 2023. Per Rule
4(B) of the Undersigned's
Individual Practices, Yeh's
opening brief and Su and
Wang's opposition brief must
not exceed twenty-five pages,
and the briefs must be
double-spaced. Yeh's reply,
and any sur-reply from Su and
Wang, must not exceed ten
pages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that Sotheby's fees motion
remains stayed pending
resolution of the above
issues. Mot., Dkt. 122. SO
ORDERED. ( Brief due by
2/17/2023., Reply to Response
to Brief due by 5/12/2023.,
Responses to Brief due by
4/21/2023, Surreplies due by
5/26/2023.) (Signed by Judge
Valerie E. Caproni on
12/2/2022) (tg)."
The case is Su v.
Sotheby's Inc., 17-cv-4577
(Caproni)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a
month helps keep us going and grants you
access to exclusive bonus material on our
Patreon page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2022 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
