Layn R. Phillips (to be admitted pro hac vice) Bruce A. Wessel (to be admitted pro hac vice) Marshall A.

Camp

IRELL & MANELLA LLP

840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400 Newport Beach, California 92660-6324 (949) 760-0991

-and-

Elkan Abramowitz Edward M. Spiro MORVILLO, ABRAMOWITZ, GRAND, IASON, ANELLO & lJU'n.r.._.cK~ 565 Fifth Avenue New York, N ew York 10017 (212) 856-9600

Attorneys for Plaintiff WILLIAM I KOCH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------- -x

WILLIAM 1. KOCH, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHRISTIE'S INTERNATIONAL PLC, a UK. public limited company; CHRISTIE, MANSON & WOODS, LTD., a U.K. private limited company; and CHRISTIE'S INC., a New York corporation

COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

------------------------------------x

2033988

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff William 1. Koch ("Plaintiff" or "Koch") alleges, on personal knowledge as to himself, and on information and belief as to Christie's International plc, Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd., and Christie's Inc. (collectively, "Defendants" or "Christie's"):

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This lawsuit is based upon an extensive, worldwide, multi-year investigation of

counterfeit wine. Rare bottles of wine selling at auction command prices in the thousands of dollars. Sophisticated wine counterfeiters have been drawn to the rare wine market. For years, those counterfeiters have duped wine collectors worldwide into paying millions of dollars for near worthless bottles of wine.

2. Wine counterfeiters employ a variety of techniques. One technique is to obtain

authentic empty wine bottles, affix counterfeit labels to the bottles misrepresenting the nature, vintage, age, and rarity of the wine inside, fill the bottles with wine, and then reuse old but intact corks. These counterfeit bottles are of such high quality that they have fooled wine collectors. Because it is not uncommon for wine to go bad from legitimate causes such as poor storage conditions, if a counterfeit bottle is opened and does not taste right, collectors often view it simply as bad luck. Not until Plaintiffs recent exhaustive investigations has the problem of counterfeit wine become known to collectors. In contrast, auction houses such as Christie's have known about the counterfeiting problem for decades. For example, in the mid-1990s Christie's participated in meetings in London with other auction houses during which they shared information about the counterfeit wine issue in general and a major source of counterfeit wine, Hardy Rodenstock ("Rodenstock"), in particular.

3. Counterfeit bottles of wine permeate collections worldwide. Often, counterfeit

wine is initially sold in a private sale. If the counterfeit problem was limited to just this first private sale, it would affect fewer people. But the problem is much broader in scope, with wine auction houses such as Christie's reselling counterfeit wine (on behalf of unsuspecting private collectors as well as counterfeiters or their intermediaries) at widely advertised public auctions.

2033988

- 1 -

This not only creates more victims, but once these wines are placed in the cellars of respected collectors, they gain a provenance. Once injected into the larger marketplace through these public auctions, the same bottle of counterfeit wine often is sold multiple times, as rare wine is often held as an investment by the collector and not consumed. Indeed the same auction house may repeatedly resell the same bottles of counterfeit wines.

4. Because an auction sale and the accompanying public distribution of the sale

catalog describing the wines being sold create a public market, most collectors with counterfeit wine in their wine cellars are the victims of counterfeit wine being resold at auction, rather than the victims of the counterfeiters' initial private sale.

5. Auction houses could eliminate most of the counterfeit wine from the market by

proper screening. In fact, some auction houses rigorously screen for counterfeit wine; however, other auction houses do not rigorously screen for counterfeit wine because there are strong incentives for them not to do so. First, with seller's commissions and buyer's premiums, the auction house keeps for itself approximately 25 percent of all sales at every wine auction. Second, having rare wine at an auction brings attention to the auction and the auction house, helping drive sales of all wine offered at that auction and attracting consignors and buyers to the auction house for future auctions. Third, large wine cellars come up for sale infrequently, and the consignor often wants to sell an entire collection. If an auction house were to accept the genuine wine but reject the counterfeits, it would risk losing the sale to another auction house that was willing to sell the entire collection. This is especially true given that counterfeit wine, when sold as genuine, often commands the highest prices at auction, as the most rare and expensive wines are often the most frequently counterfeited. Thus, rejecting the counterfeits could significantly decrease the consignor's expected return on the sale and result in the auction house losing the entire consignment to a competitor. These are some reasons that motivate auction houses like Christie's to sometimes look the other way and offer counterfeit wine for sale.

2033988

- 2 -

6. Christie's is one of the world's largest auction houses. Christie's describes itself as

"firmly at the front of the international wine auction market." As described herein, Christie's has sold counterfeit wine for years. Because Christie's has inspected so many wine cellars and has examined so many bottles of wine, it knows how to identify counterfeit wine. Christie's also has unique access to facts and circumstances that might call into question the authenticity of specific wines it handles. Yet, Christie's attempts to absolve itself of responsibility for sales of counterfeits by including elaborate small print disclaimers in its auction catalogs. If distilled to its essence, that small print says: "let the buyer beware." To lure and secure wine collectors to participate in its auctions, Christie's invests in expensive glossy wine auction catalogs with glowing, detailed, and elaborate descriptions of the wines to be auctioned, specific and extensive tasting notes from its recognized wine specialists, and assertions about the rarity and uniqueness of featured wines. However, even though Christie's is often aware of circumstances,

communications, and events which directly challenge the veracity and substance of its catalogs'

detailed narratives, provenance, and wine descriptions, it fails to include any mention of these adverse authenticity or provenance questions. Instead, Christie's catalogs typically have general boilerplate language such as: "The wine is sold 'as is.'" Because of such disclaimers, when sued, auction houses such as Christie's routinely argue that no buyer should rely on anything in their catalogs as being truthful. This is misleading, deceptive, and unfair to bidders. Christie's uses its catalogs and the extensive descriptions, narratives, and tasting notes therein to solicit consumers to participate in its auctions and purchase the featured wines. As set forth in greater detail

below, Christie's' catalogs contain glowing statements regarding the supposedly exceptional character, quality, previous ownership, rarity and value of certain wines, even when Christie's personnel were aware, or had reason to be aware, that such statements were not substantially true or in some cases knowingly false. As demonstrated by the many examples in this Complaint, Christie's consciously chooses not to provide potential buyers with important, material and complete information of which it has knowledge.

2033988

- 3 -

7. As explained in this Complaint, Plaintiffs investigation of counterfeit wine has

identified some consistent patterns. The creator of much ofthe counterfeit high priced wine in the world is a German national who uses the self-created name Hardy Rodenstock (his given name is Meinhard Goerke). For decades, Rodenstock's counterfeiting activities have been aided and abetted by J. Michael Broadbent, the former long-time head of Christie's' Wine Department and thereafter a Senior Consultant to Christie's. Broadbent has used his unique stature in the wine world and his widely published tasting notes to legitimize the authenticity of Roden stock's wines and to attract potential purchasers and increase Christie's' sales. Christie's continues to use Broadbent's tasting notes, which sometimes reference Rodenstock by name, to sell wine.

8. Christie's has engaged in a pattern and practice of selling counterfeit wine for

many years. In support of the claims set forth herein, this Complaint addresses the historical and current role of Christie's in the counterfeit wine market worldwide and includes information

provided to Plaintiffs investigators by several former Christie's senior staff and employees.

PARTIES

9. Plaintiff William 1. Koch is a citizen of the State of Florida.

10. Defendant Christie's Inc. is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws

of New York, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Christie's Inc. auctions wines in its New York showroom, in regional offices throughout the United States, and to customers around the world via written bid, online absentee bid, telephone bid, and Christie's Live, a remote-bidding program that allows customers to bid live online.

11. Defendant Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. is a U.Ki-based private limited

company that auctions purportedly fine and rare wines to customers in its London showroom and to customers around the world, including in New York, via written bid, online absentee bid, telephone bid, and Christie's Live.

12. Defendant Christie's International pIc is a U.K.-based public limited company that

maintains and operates auction houses worldwide, including in New York, New York.

2033988

- 4-

13. Defendants Christie's Inc., Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd., and Christie's

International pIc are directly related to one another. Defendants Christie's Inc. and Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. are both subsidiaries of Christie's International plc, As of at least December 31, 2008, Christie's International plc provided a guarantee to the bankers of Christie's Inc., and both Christie's International pic and Christie's Inc. provided a guarantee to the bankers of Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. In furtherance of the allegations in this Complaint, Defendants Christie's Inc., Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd., and Christie's International pIc acted in concert with one another. For example, J. Michael Broadbent actively participated in Christie's Inc. 's wine sales activities in the United States and in New York City in particular.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14. Jurisdiction over the claims arising under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 is proper in this Court

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Supplemental jurisdiction over the common law and state law claims alleged herein is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Jurisdiction over the common law and state law claims alleged herein is also appropriate under

28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states and citizens of foreign states.

15. Personal jurisdiction and venue over this action lies within this District pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) and (b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) because (i) some or all of the Defendants reside, are found, have an agent, or transact their affairs in the Southern District of New York and/or (ii) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred

in the Southern District of New York. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1965(b), the ends of justice require that all defendants be brought before this Court.

16. The Defendants, either individually, through their agents or as part of their

conspiracy, have transacted business within this District, have committed tortious acts against Plaintiff within this District, and/or have committed tortious acts outside of this District causing injury to Plaintiff in this District.

2033988

- 5 -

CONFIDENTIAL WITNESSES

17. Persons, including former Christie's employees, have provided Plaintiff with

information concerning Christie's' long-running pattern and practice of promoting and selling counterfeit bottles of wine. These witnesses generally gave such information on a confidential basis and each is designated herein as ncw_," as stated below.

18. CWI is a former head of Christie's' Glass and Ceramics Department in London

who worked at Christie's for 44 years beginning in 1963. While at Christie's, CWI had direct interactions with members of Christie's' Wine Department including Michael Broadbent.

19. CW2 is a fanner employee of the British Library, where CW2 worked for twenty

years before retiring. CW2 is an expert in old documents and in handwriting and script, and has been consulted in connection with the forgery of documents and books. CW2 has been directly consulted by Michael Broadbent regarding certain bottles of wine.

20. CW3 is a former glass engraver who is currently involved in other business.

CW3 worked in the trade for many years. CW3 began training in engraving when CW3 was 16 years old. In the 1980s, CW3 lived and worked in the same area of Germany as Rodenstock.

21. CW4 is a glass engraver who has been in the business for over 30 years and

currently still practices in the trade. CW 4 has owned an engraving shop since approximately 1984. In the 1980s, CW4lived and worked in the same area of Germany as Rodenstock.

22. CW5, a glass polisher by trade who trained in glass engraving, owned a glass

store for many years, which CW5 closed approximately nine years ago upon retirement. In the 1980s, CW5 lived and worked in the same area of Germany as Rodenstock.

23. CW6 is a former employee of a print shop CW6's family owned. In the 1980s,

CW6 lived and worked in the same area of Germany as Rodenstock.

24. CW7 is a former regional head of Christie's' wine sales who worked at Christie's

from 2000 through 2007. CW7 had regular interactions with Christie's executives both in and out of Christie's' Wine Department, including interactions with Michael Broadbent. CW7's

2033988

- 6 -

responsibilities included managing and overseeing Christie's' wine auctions CW7's region and increasing sales through interactions with potential consignees and purchasers.

25. CW8 is a former head of Christie's' Wine Department who worked at Christie's

from 1997 through 2000. CW8 had regular interactions with Christie's executives both in and out of Christie's' Wine Department, including interactions with Michael Broadbent. CW8's responsibilities included managing and overseeing Christie's' wine auctions and increasing sales through interactions with potential consignees and purchasers.

26. CW9 is a former Christie's employee who worked in Christie's' Wine Department

from 1996 to 2000. During that time, CW9 had responsibilities that brought CW9 into direct contact with Christie's' customers and the management of Christie's' Wine Department. For example, CW9's responsibilities included organizing high-profile VIP wine tastings attended by Christie's' top customers and the top management of Christie's' Wine Department including Michael Broadbent.

27. CWIO is a high-ranking executive at New York Wine Warehouse. Christie's

partners with New York Wine Warehouse and uses New York Wine Warehouse's state license to conduct Christie's' wine auctions in New York. Christie's and New York Wine Warehouse use the name "N'r'Winesffhristie's" in the promotional materials associated with Christie's' New York auctions. CWIO has regular interactions with Christie's' executives both in and out of Christie's' Wine Department.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

I. CHRISTIE'S' 1985 SALE OF A COUNTERFEIT 1787 LAFITE, AMONG OTHER COUNTERFEITS.

A. Rodenstock Claims To Have Discovered Wine Owned by Thomas Jefferson.

28. Hardy Rodenstock is a well-known wine connoisseur who has for decades been

involved in the tasting and promotion ofrare vintages of wine. He has created or orchestrated

2033988

- 7 -

the creation of numerous bottles of counterfeit wine, which he often claims to have "discovered" in locations and/or from persons he will not reveal.

29. Christie's has had a professional relationship with Rodenstock for decades

through J. Michael Broadbent, the former head of Christie's' Wine Department and thereafter a Senior Consultant to Christie's. With Christie's having promoted and established Rodenstock's reputation as an unparalleled fine collector of rare and unique wines through Broadbent's numerous catalog and other published writings and statements over the years about Rodenstock's wines, Christie's has continued to invoke Rodenstock's name to market its rare wines. For example, Christie's cites Rodenstock in marketing descriptions authored by Broadbent in its December 10, 2009 auction catalog, its December 11, 2008 auction catalog, and twelve separate times in its October 5,2006 auction catalog. Broadbent also relies heavily on Rodenstock in his treatise The Great Vintage Wine Book, which Christie's cites extensively in its auction catalogs.

Broadbent's reputation and career are closely entwined with Rodenstock's reputation and career,

and Broadbent has a personal interest in ensuring that Rodenstock and Christie's enjoy and continue to enjoy credibility in fine wine circles. Broadbent has described his relationship with Rodenstock as follows:

"A Munich resident, Hardy began buying fine and rare wines at Christie's in the 1970s. He is the most lavish giver of major wine events, to which he invites his close friends, among whose number I am lucky to count myself. ... Through his immense generosity I have not only had the opportunity to taste an enormous range of great and very rare wines, but have met a very wide circle of enthusiasts and collectors, becoming one ofthe privileged fixtures at Hardy's events."

Michael Broadbent's Vintage Wine: Fifty Years of Tasting Three Centuries of Wines 110 (2002).

30. In the mid-1980's, Rodenstock claimed to have discovered a cache of wine

bearing the initials "Th.J." in a bricked-up wine cellar in Paris, France, that both he and Christie's

2033988

- 8 -

linked to Thomas Jefferson, the former Minister to France and the third President of the United

States C'Th.J. Wine"). Rodenstock has never disclosed the exact location of this cellar or the

exact circumstances of the discovery. Rodenstock has also changed his story over time, offering completely contradictory explanations for the origin of this Th.J. Wine. He later claimed that he

bought the bottles ofTh.J. Wine at a warehouse in Paris :from an unidentified person who may no

longer be alive.

31. Rodenstock's Th.J. Wine story seemed to have credibility. The bottles were old

and consistent with glass bottles :from the 1700's, and engraved with the initials "Th.L," the name

of a period winery, and a vintage. Jefferson had lived in Paris in the late 1700's when he was the

United States Minister to France, and was an avid wine collector. Historical records confirm that

Jefferson purchased French wine for his cellar while he was in France and after he returned to

the United States. Thus, it was credible that wine bottled for, sold to, or owned by Jefferson

support he received from Christie's and Broadbent, who both entered into an agreement with

Rodenstock to sell and promote the Th.J. Wine.

B. Christie's Sells Th.J. Wine At A December 1985 Auction.

32. Broadbent and Rodenstock made arrangements to sell a bottle of the alleged Th.J.

Wine at a December 1985 Christie's auction. Through its extensive and widely publicized

marketing and catalog efforts, including Broadbent's personal stamp of approval of the wine, Christie's sold the bottle at public auction and brought substantial prestige to Christie's as well as Rodenstock. Neither Christie's nor Broadbent disclosed to the public that before the sale Christie's had direct and specific knowledge of facts and circumstances that challenged Rodenstock's and its claims about the authenticity of the wine. Neither Christie's nor Broadbent

disclosed that at that time Christie's admitted in a private letter to the Thomas Jefferson

Memorial Foundation at Monticello ("Monticello") that it had "no actual proof" that the wine

was authentic, that there was "a big gap" in the connection to Jefferson, and that it was troubled

2033988

- 9 -

by Rodenstock's refusal to obtained the wine.

33. Before the December 1985 auction, Broadbent contacted Monticello. The

it from exactly what physical location or from whom he had

Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, now known as the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, was founded in 1923 and since that time has amassed a unique wealth of original research and expertise relating to Thomas Jefferson's life, times, and legacy. Monticello is widely recognized as a leading international authority on Jefferson's life, writings, records, and activities. Monticello operates the Thomas Jefferson Visitor Center and Smith Education Center, the 15,500-square-foot Jefferson Library, and the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies. Through these arms, Monticello fosters Jefferson scholarship by conducting international scholarly conferences, lectures, informal talks, panel discussions, teacher workshops, curriculum-based tours, and other programs, and offers long- and short-term residential fellowships for researchers and scholars. Monticello regularly receives and responds to inquiries from scholars, researchers, teachers, students, authors, the media, government agencies, cultural institutions, and other organizations from around the world regarding Jefferson-related subjects,

34. Broadbent communicated with Monticello by telephone and letter regarding the

authenticity of the Th.J. Wine bottle. In a private November 6, 1985 letter to Broadbent, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1, Jefferson historian Cinder Goodwin of Monticello expressed skepticism that the Th.J. Wine was connected to Jefferson, but said that she would reserve final judgment until she "learned something of [the bottles'] provenance." In response, in a private November 15, 1985 letter to Goodwin, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2, Broadbent admitted that "no actual proof exists" that the bottles were connected to Jefferson.

35. Broadbent had other questions about the origins and provenance of the Th.J.

Wine, and about Rodenstock. In an October 2006 interview, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 3, Broadbent stated that "it struck [him] that it was very unusual that a Frenchman, the person who sold these bottles to Rodenstock[,] had no idea of the significance of the ThJ." Ex. 3

2033988

- 10 -

at 17:20-23.

has also said that he was not happy

Rodenstock would not tell him - and

never has told him in sufficient detail to satisfy him, precisely where Rodenstock found the Th.J. Wine. See Ex. 3 at 15:15-23. In fact, Broadbent actually "ha[d] no idea" whether any written evidence supported the Jefferson connection, and thought that the lack of information regarding "what happened," "where ... the engraving [was] done," "why ... the engraving [was] done," "who did [the engraving]," and "how [the bottles] arrive[ed] in Paris" was "the big gap" in the proof of a connection between Jefferson and the Th.J. Wine. Ex. 3 at 32:18-25.

36. Despite Monticello's skepticism and Broadbent's knowledge that there was "no

actual proof" of Jefferson's ownership of the bottles or any link at all between the bottles and Jefferson, Christie's agreed with Rodenstock to tout the Th.J. Wine as authentic. Christie's forged ahead with the Th.J. Wine auction in December 1985, including advertising that the Th.J. Wine was connected to Jefferson. The auction catalog (the "1985 Christie's Catalog"), an excerpt of which is attached as Exhibit 4, displayed a photograph of the Th.J. Wine bottle on the cover. The catalog described the ;;1787 Th.J. Lafitte" as the "property ofMr. Hardy Rodenstock," and included a lengthy statement, written by Broadbent (notwithstanding his own admitted doubts about a "big gap" in the connection to Jefferson and Rodenstock's refusal to explain where the wine came from), tying Jefferson to the bottle:

"Th.J. are the initials of Thomas Jefferson. 'One of the most splendid men of American history' took over as Minister Plenipotentiary (Ambassador) to France from the ailing Dr. Benjamin Franklin in May 1784 remaining at this post until October 1789. He was a great admirer of French culture and from the outset sought out and purchased the finest wine, mainly top class claret and sauternes, through Mr. John Bondfield, the American consul in Bordeaux. In 1787 he undertook a tour of the wine regions of southern France, including Bordeaux for which he

2033988

- 11 -

had a life-long regard .... Jefferson's purchases of Bordeaux wines are well documented ....

In July 1790 he wrote, in French, via his agent in France to several chateau proprietors. In the letter to the Comte de Lur Saluces he said that because of the high quality of his wine that he would like to order '30 dozen Sauterne' for the President, identified with the initials 'G.W.' and '10 dozen ditto' for himself with his own initials . . . . A Bottle of 1787 Yquem with Jefferson's monogram was taken by the present owner, a Mr. Rodenstock, to the Chateau and tasted this May (1985) in the presence of the Comte de Lur Saluces and several connoisseurs. . .. From the same bricked up Paris cellar Mr. Rodenstock also acquired three bottles of 1787 Brane [sic] Mouton (now Mouton-Rothschild), Chateau Margau (sic), the Lafite and another bottle ofYquem[,] one of which is planned to be opened in 1987 at Monticello, Jefferson's historic home in

Virginia.

A bottle ofYquem of the great 1784 vintage from the same cellar was opened at a remarkable tasting event in Wiesbaden on 14 October (1985). The host and owner of the collection, Mr. Hardy Rodenstock, opened the bottle in the company of the Comte de Lur Saluces and a group of international experts and connoisseurs. The head ofChristie's['] Wine Department [Broadbent] was privileged to be present and reports that the wine was perfect in every sense: colour, bouquet and taste."

37. Christie's did not disclose, in the 1985 Christie's Catalog or elsewhere, that the foremost Jefferson authorities in the world at Monticello had expressed in writing to Christie's

2033988

- 12 -

that they had doubts and concerns about the provenance of the Th.J. Wine bottle. As set forth in more detail below, undaunted, Christie's, Broadbent, and Rodenstock proceeded to increase their lobbying efforts directed at Monticello in an effort to find a credible third-party who would corroborate their claims ofJefferson authenticity. Moreover, the statement in the 1985 Christie's Catalog regarding plans to open a Th.J. Wine bottle at Monticello in 1987 was false. Rodenstock, in an attempt to destroy Monticello's neutrality by giving it a vested interest in the wine's authenticity (as he had done with Christie'S), first proposed the idea of a tasting of Th.J. Wine in conjunction with an event at Monticello to be held after the December 1985 auction. Monticello's Director, Dan Jordan, rejected the proposal in a February 28, 1986 letter because Monticello's Jefferson scholars did not believe that the Th.J. Wine had any connection to Jefferson. Copies of Roden stock's February 3, 1986 letter (together with a certified translation) and Jordan's February 28, 1986 letter are attached as Exhibits 5 and 6.

38. Before the December 1985 auction, Christie's distributed the 1985 Christie's

Catalog and marketed the wine throughout the world, including in the United States. Potential bidders were able to see and read the statements and assertions in the 1985 Christie's Catalog about the Th.J. Wine. The December 1985 auction was open to New York bidders.

39. In addition to the 1985 Christie's Catalog, Christie's also distributed world-wide,

including in New York, an accompanying sale memorandum written by Broadbent ("Sale Memorandum 314"), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 7. Sale Memorandum 314 contains two single-spaced pages of representations tying the Th.J. Wine bottle to Jefferson, in addition to stating that certain features of the bottle and engraving were historically accurate:

"The precise whereabouts of the [bricked up Paris] cellar is not known to us, nor is the history of the wine: whether it was from one of Jefferson's residences, ifnot how it had got there, or when. All we can say with certainty is that the bottle is of the correct date, the lettering and the wheel engraving are absolutely right for the period."

2033988

- 13 -

40. In the first sentence of this statement, Christie's notes there is lack ofinfonnation

about certain matters; yet it seeks to dismiss any concern a potential buyer might have about that lack of information by representing in the very next sentence that Christie's is certain about defining aspects of the bottle. Moreover, Christie's never expresses any doubt, concern, or question that the bottle was indeed tied to Thomas Jefferson. Christie's representation about the supposed certainty that "the bottle is of the correct date, the lettering and the wheel engraving are absolutely right for the period" was based on an examination of the bottle by CWl, who was in 1985 the head of Christie's' Glass and Ceramics Department in London. Before the December 1985 auction, Broadbent asked CWI to determine whether the engraving on the bottle was contemporary with the late 1700's. Broadbent claims that CWI "said it was absolutely correct with the time." Ex. 3 at 20:13. CWl, however, has admitted to having had no training in glass engraving or tool mark identification, to having never personally done any glass engraving, to having never been asked to provide an opinion concerning wine bottles other than this one time

by Broadbent with respect to the Th.J. Wine, and to having never encountered any bottles that had been similarly engraved other than the Th.J. Wine Broadbent showed him. CWI never produced a written report of the alleged analysis of the Th.J. Wine bottle, and CWI acknowledged to The New Yorker magazine that CWI may have been "conned" about the authenticity of the engraving.

41. Broadbent has also claimed, including as recently as in a September 2006 article

on the decanter. com website, that before the December 1985 auction, he also asked CW2, then of the British Library, to examine the lettering on the Th.J. Wine bottle and to determine whether the lettering was contemporary with the late 1700's. Broadbent claims that CW2 concluded that the letters were "absolutely correct, the sort oflettering was absolutely correct for the period, and was French. fI In fact, as CW2 has confirmed, Broadbent did not ask CW2 to examine any Th.J. Wine bottle until around 2006 and never asked CW2 to do so in the 1980's.

42. On December 5, 1985, Christie's sold Rodenstock's Th.J. Wine bottle offered in

the 1985 Christie's Catalog to Christopher Forbes for £105,000 (then approximately

2033988

- 14 -

$156,000.00). This has been reported as the highest price ever paid for a bottle of wine. A representative of Forbes hand-carried the wine directly from London to New York, where the bottle was displayed as part of The Forbes Collection in N ew York.

43. Following the sale to Forbes, Christie's issued a press release on December 9,

1985, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 8. The press release touted that Christie's had obtained a "World record price for 1787 Lafite." Christie's' press release also tied Jefferson to the bottle:

o "The bottle itself, the property of Europe's best-known collector ofrare wines, Mr. Hardy Rodenstock, was engraved 1787 Lafitte (sic) Th.J. (Th.J. are the initials of Thomas Jefferson, the first two-term president of the United States.)." (emphasis in original).

"Apart from the engraving on the bottle, the other remarkable aspect was the mass

of unprecedented documentary evidence in the form ofletters from Jefferson to

the leading Bordeaux chateau proprietors ordering their wine, to Jefferson's secretary in Paris, and to his agent, Mr. Fenwick, the American Consul in Bordeaux, giving precise details for the identification of the wine which he was purchasing for himself and for George Washington, the President. In these letters, Jefferson specifically requested the wine to be bottled at the chateaux, and for his and the President's stocks to be identified (,etiquettes') by the use of his initials and 'G.W.'''

44. Even though Christie's extolled "the mass of unprecedented documentary evidence" allegedly tying the Th.J. Wine bottle to Jefferson, Christie's did not disclose, in the December 9, 1985 press release or elsewhere, that Monticello, the international scholarly authority on Jefferson's papers and life, had informed Broadbent that it did not agree that the bottle had any connection to Jefferson. Neither did Christie's disclose Broadbent's actual opinion, as expressed in his November 15, 1985 letter to Monticello before the sale, that Broadbent actually "ha[d] no idea" whether any written evidence supported the Jefferson

2033988

- 15 -

connection and that had concerns about the "big gap" such connection claimed by

Rodenstock.

45. Christie's' December 9, 1985 press release also stated that Christie's had the Th.J.

Wine bottle examined by "glass experts at Christie's," who allegedly "confirmed the age of [sic] bottle and engraving." The press release asserted that "[t]he wheel engraved letters and figures [on the Th.J. Wine bottle] were also of the period." Christie's did not disclose that it had not, in fact, had "[t]he wheel engraved letters and figures" on the bottle evaluated by any glass experts with experience in reviewing and opining on such engravings on wine bottles.

46. The December 9, 1985 press release also stated that the bottle was "one of a

dozen of similarly identified wines discovered earlier this year in a bricked up Paris cellar .... " Christie's did not disclose that, as Broadbent has admitted, "[t]he truth of the matter is [Christie's] d[id] not know whether it was less than a dozen or more than a dozen or exactly how many

[Th.J. Wine] bottles" existed (Ex. 3 at 37:5-9), that Rodenstock had said that he could have had as many as thirty-six Th.1. Wine bottles, and that it had been Broadbent's idea, which Christie's promoted, to state falsely in the press release that only a dozen Th.J. Wine bottles existed in an effort to increase demand for Christie's' next auction of a Th.J. Wine bottle.

47. Concerned that Monticello's failure to endorse the Th.J. Wine as authentic

Jefferson wine, if the public found out about it despite Christie's efforts to conceal it, could frustrate Christie's' fraudulent scheme and derail future auctions and sales, Rodenstock wrote to Monticello on December 28, 1985. In his letter, a copy of which (together with a certified translation) is attached as Exhibit 9, Rodenstock attacked Monticello's Jefferson scholar Cinder Goodwin as "understand[ing] nothing" and lacking "sufficient knowledge" to opine on any connection between Jefferson and the Th.J. Wine. Rodenstock never divulged the correspondence to any purchaser of his alleged Th.J. Wine.

48. In a January 23, 1986 letter in response, a copy of which is attached as

Exhibit 10, Monticello's Director, Dan Jordan, informed Rodenstock what Monticello had already informed Christie's before the sale of the first bottle, that "Ms. Goodwin has serious

2033988

- 16 -

doubts about any association between Mr. Jefferson and the wine bottle." In a February 28, 1986 letter responding to further correspondence from Rodenstock, Jordan reiterated that Monticello "stand]s] behind Ms. Goodwin's research and conclusions 100%". Ex. 6. Jordan also informed Rodenstock that "given doubts about the Jefferson connection" to the Th.J. Wine, he did not think that Monticello's Board of Trustees would grant Rodenstock's request to hold a Th.J. Wine tasting at Monticello.

49. In an April 11, 1986 letter to Rodenstock, a copy of which is attached as

Exhibit 11, Jordan informed Rodenstock that "[a] study of all the relevant documents of 1790 and 1791 (documents which you and Mr. Broadbent have not consulted) makes it clear that there is no connection between Jefferson's wine orders of 1790 and the 'Th.J.' bottles in your collection." (emphasis in original). Jordan enclosed a research report prepared by Goodwin, "outlin[ing] the reasons for our doubts." The report is entitled "RESEARCH REPORT: Chateau Lafite 1787, with initials 'TH. J.'" (the "Monticello Report"). Jordan stated that the "clear implication [of the report and its enclosures] is that the existence of your bottles is a remarkable coincidence, but not, unfortunately, a vestige of Jefferson."

50. Plaintiff was only able to obtain a copy of the report in 2005, shortly before

publication of a book by James Gabler, which made the report public for the first time. Prior to 2005, Plaintiff did not know about Goodwin's report. A copy of the Monticello Report is attached as Exhibit 12.

51. The Monticello Report severely undercuts the authenticity of the wine on several

grounds:

• Jefferson's highly detailed financial records, which include daily receipts and expenditures and are considered by historians to be complete and accurate, and of which Jefferson himself said he would vouch for their accuracy and completeness "on the bed of death," do not show a single purchase of any Chateau Lafite 1787, one of the vintages and producers of the Th.J. Wine, or any of the other vintages engraved on the Th.J. Wine. The one exception is 1784 Chateau d'Y quem, which

2033988

- 17 -

Jefferson is known to have ordered and received in 1788, but which was not engraved, with "Th.J." or otherwise.

None of Jefferson's records mention Jefferson ever desiring to obtain a Bordeaux wine of the 1787 vintage.

Researchers at Monticello have examined a number of wine bottles and wine bottle glass known to have been owned by Jefferson. None have any engraving. There is no historical evidence that Jefferson ever asked for wine bottles to be engraved.

When Jefferson had items of personal property (none of which included wine bottles) marked with his initials, the markings were with the initials "TJ" or "TI," not "Th.J." Jefferson used the abbreviation "Th:J" (with a colon, not a period) as a short form of his signature on correspondence, but did not use that abbreviation in marking personal property.

C. Christie's December 1986 And April 1987 Sales Of Two More Bottles Of Th.J. Wine.

52. In 1986, intending to auction another of Rodenstock's Th.J. Wine bottles notwithstanding the damning conclusions of the Monticello Report, Broadbent continued his efforts to convince Monticello that the Th.J. Wine was connected to Jefferson, while at the same time admitting that no written evidence supported such a conclusion. In a June 9, 1986 letter to Monticello's Director, Jordan, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 13, Broadbent told Jordan that he had recently tasted another Th.J. Wine, a 1787 Branne-Mouton. Broadbent asserted that "[t]he bottle itself is undoubtedly correct" and that "[w]e, at Christie's, are very familiar with these old bottles." He then acknowledged that "there is no written evidence that these particular bottles had been in the possession of Jefferson, but I am now firmly convinced that this indeed was the wine that Jefferson ordered in 1791 .... " Broadbent also claimed that "there is no way

2033988

- 18 -

that the engraving can have been done recently, for not only is the technique totally different but the glass itself would have been too fragile to work on."

53. Despite being told more than once in stark language by the world's foremost

experts on Thomas Jefferson of the doubts and concems about the provenance of the Th.J. Wine, one year after Christie's sold the first Th.J. Wine bottle to Forbes it offered another Th.J. Wine bottle for sale, again advertising it in a manner intentionally and deceptively suggesting that the wine was clearly connected to Jefferson, and without in any way disclosing what Christie's had been told by the Jefferson scholars at Monticello, namely that the wine had no nexus to President Thomas Jefferson: "I think it is a question of someone other than Jefferson, and perhaps there is an equally fascinating story there." Exs. 11 and 12. Christie's again showcased the Th.J. Wine bottle in a photograph on the cover ofthe 1986 auction catalog (the "1986 Christie's Catalog"), an excerpt of which is attached as Exhibit 14. In a multi-page description of Jefferson and his

wine purchases, again authored by Broadbent and again in the face of direct and credible

challenges to the wine's authenticity and information uniquely possessed by Christie's and Broadbent, Christie's restated its claim that the Th.J. Wine was connected to Jefferson and that Christie's had consulted experts "in England and overseas" who had concluded that the bottle was genuine:

• "From the initials engraved on the bottle it is assumed that the wine, recovered last year from a bricked-up cellar in Paris, and one of about a dozen, including the 1787 Yquem, Lafitte, Margaux and Branne-Mouton ... was once the property of Thomas Jefferson, at that time the American Ambassador to France."

"[FJrom the letters ordering the wine and from authorities consulted in England and overseas, we feel there is a very strong case to be made for the authenticity of the engraving and provenance. "

54. Christie's again did not disclose Monticello's doubts and concems or the exhaustive historical research and objective conclusions of the Monticello Report. Christie's also intentionally misled prospective buyers by stating that it had consulted "authorities ... overseas"

2033988

- 19 '"

England) who supported the connection of the Th,J. Wine to Jefferson, again without in anyway disclosing the directly contradictory information Christie's had received from Monticello. In fact, Plaintiff asserts based on information and belief that Monticello was the only "authorities ... overseas" consulted by Christie's, rendering the above representation not only misleading, but unquestionably and intentionally false. Having chosen to insert into its marketing material its consultation with" authorities ... overseas," Christie's chose a course of conduct that was deliberately deceptive by not disclosing the true opinion of Monticello, the foremost "overseas" authority on Jefferson.

55. Before the December 1986 auction, Christie's advertised the sale and distributed

the 1986 Christie's Catalog throughout the world, including in New York. Potential bidders were able to see and read the statements in the 1986 Christie's Catalog about the Th.J. Wine. The December 1986 auction was open to bidders located in New York.

56. On December 4, 1986, Christie's sold Rodenstock's Th.J. Wine bottle offered in

the 1986 Christie's Catalog to Basil Shiblaq for £36,000 (then approximately $56,628.00). Broadbent later told Shiblaq that there were only three genuine bottles of Jefferson wine - his bottle, Forbes' bottle, and a third bottle in New York. Broadbent later contradicted himself, discussing in his books tasting seven bottles ofTh.J. Wine. See Michael Broadbent, The Great Vintage Wine Book II 437 (1991) (describing tasting five bottles of Th.J. Wine); Michael Broadbent's Vintage Wine: Fifty Years of Tasting Three Centuries of Wines 11 and 170 (2002) (describing tasting two additional bottles ofTh.J. Wine). As detailed below, Christie's has sold other counterfeit wine to Shiblaq on many occasions.

57. The fol1owing year, 1987, Christie's sold a third Th.J. Wine bottle at Vinexpo, an

annual, intemational1y-known trade show in Bordeaux, France. On the last day of the trade show, Christie's offered a half-bottle for sale, labeled as 1784 Margaux. Before he opened the bidding, Broadbent (who was the auctioneer) read passages of two Jefferson letters that mentioned 1784 Margaux. Christie's again intentionally deceived the public and withheld any

2033988

- 20-

disclosure whatsoever of the information it had received from Monticello that the Th.J. Wine was not in fact connected to Jefferson.

D. Plaintiff Purchases Four Bottles OfTh.J. Wine.

58. After learning of Rodenstock's discovery of the Th.J. Wine bottles and Christie's'

auctions, Plaintiff decided to purchase Th.J. Wine bottles like those auctioned by Christie's.

59. At that time, Christie's (largely through Broadbent's efforts) held a unique and

authoritative position in the wine world. Christie's advertised the Th.J. Wine bottles to the public in such a way as to induce reliance upon its representations. Relying on statements made by Christie's about the Th.J. Wine and about Rodenstock, Plaintiff decided to purchase bottles of Th.J. Wine. Plaintiff purchased one bottle ofTh.J. Wine in November 1988 for $100,000.00. Plaintiff purchased this bottle from Rodenstock, who sold the wine to Plaintiff utilizing The Chicago Wine Company and Farr Vintners as intermediaries. This bottle was engraved with "1787 Branne Mouton Th.J." Rodenstock represented to Farr Vintners (with the intent and expectation that Farr Vintners would repeat such representations to potential purchasers) that the bottle with the above-stated engravings came from the same cache of wine as the bottle that Forbes had purchased at the December 1985 Christie's auction, and was discovered, along with that bottle, in a walled-up cellar in Paris. Farr Vintners repeated Rodenstock's representations to The Chicago Wine Company, along with the other representations made by Christie's in the 1985 Christie's Catalog, Sale Memorandum 314, Christie's' December 9, 1985 press release, and the 1986 Christie's Catalog, with the intention and expectation that they would be repeated to Plaintiff. The Chicago Wine Company did repeat those representations to Plaintiff. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon Christie's', Rodenstock's, and their agents' representations regarding the bottle, together with the engraving on the bottle, in determining to purchase the wine. Additionally, due to its authoritative position in the fine wine world, Christie's' glowing endorsements of the wines and of Rodenstock - made with the intent to influence wine collectors like Plaintiff to purchase Rodenstock's wines - reasonably led Plaintiff to believe that the wine

2033988

- 21 -

offered by Rodenstock was authentic, substantially assisted Rodenstock's ability to sell this bottle, and furthered Christie's' and Rodenstock's agreement to promote and sell the Th.J. Wine.

60. Again relying on Christie's' statements about the Th.J. Wine, such as those made

in the 1985 Christie's Catalog that was distributed worldwide, and Christie's' express support and backing of Rodenstock's claims about the Th.J. Wine through Christie's own assertions and writings about the wine, Plaintiff purchased three more bottles ofTh.J. Wine in December 1988, paying a total of $211 ,804.40. Farr Vintners, acting as Rodenstock's agent, obtained these bottles from Rodenstock for the specific purpose of selling them to Plaintiff. The three bottles were purportedly a 1787 Chateau Lafite, a 1784 Chateau Lafite, and a 1784 Chateau BranneMouton, and were engraved, respectively: "1787 Lafite Th.J.," "1784 Lafite Th.J.," and "1784 Branne Mouton Th.J." Lindsay Hamilton ofFarr Vintners, as Rodenstock's agent, personally hand-delivered these three bottles of wine to Plaintiff at Plaintiffs then-apartment in New York and represented to Plaintiff that these three bottles containing the above-described engravings were part of the cache of bottles that Rodenstock found in the same walled-up cellar as the bottle ofTh.J. Wine that Forbes had purchased at the December 1985 Christie's auction. Farr Vintners also repeated to Plaintiff the statements made by Christie's in the 1985 Christie's Catalog, Sale Memorandum 314, the Christie's December 9, 1985 press release, and the 1986 Christie's Catalog. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon Christie's' and Rodenstock's representations in his purchase of these three bottles of Th.J. Wine. Here, too, Christie's' glowing (though misleading and deceptive) endorsements of the wines and of Rodenstock - made with the intent to influence wine collectors like Plaintiff to purchase Rodenstock's wines - reasonably led Plaintiff to believe that the wines were authentic, substantially assisted Rodenstock's ability to sell this bottle, and furthered Christie's' and Rodenstock's agreement to promote and sell the Th.J. Wine.

2033988

- 22-

E. The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation Again Places Broadbent On Notice That The Th.J. Wine Has No Connection To Thomas Jefferson.

61. Broadbent, not satisfied with the publicity from having sold three bottles ofTh.J.

Wine pursuant to Christie's' scheme with Rodenstock, wrote again to Monticello in 1991 to try to convince Monticello's Goodwin that the Th.J. Wine was connected to Jefferson. In an

August 12, 1991 letter, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 15, Broadbent argued that historical records supported the conclusion that Jefferson had instructed that certain wine bottles be diamond engraved with the initial of the kind of wine contained in the bottle.

62. In response, Goodwin again informed Broadbent that "we still have found no

evidence of engraved wine bottles at Monticello." A copy of Goodwin's September 9, 1991 letter to Broadbent is attached as Exhibit 16, which states in part

"I still would suggest that trying to link Mr. Rodenstock's bottles with one of Jefferson's large wine orders is problematical. The relevant records of these orders and their receipt are so complete .... I would be delighted as you to find an unequivocal documentary connection to Mr. Rodenstock's bottles (I do wish he would reveal the source of the collectionl)."

63. Undaunted, Broadbent tried another tack: like Rodenstock six years earlier, Broadbent offered to hold a talk and tasting event at Monticello in order to win Monticello's goodwill and influence its stance toward the Th.J. Wine. This time, Broadbent offered to hold a tasting of Madeira, a specialty of the San Francisco, California based wine company Broadbent Selections founded by his son Bartholomew Broadbent. Monticello again declined. Copies of Broadbent's February 27, 1992 letter offering the talk and tasting and Monticello's March 9, 1992 response are attached hereto as Exhibits 17 and 18.

2033988

- 23 -

64. Christie's did not disclose Broadbent's further failed attempts to obtain

Monticello's endorsement ofthe Th.J. Wine to Plaintiff or any other purchasers of the Th.J. Wine.

F. All Bottles Of The Th.J. Wine Sold And Promoted By Christie's Are Counterfeit.

65. In 2005, Plaintiff was asked to include a photograph of his four Th.J. Wine bottles in a catalog for a museum in Boston in association with a future exhibit at the museum of Plaintiffs collection of art and other items. In preparing for the exhibit and the associated publication, Plaintiffs staff contacted Monticello to confirm the provenance of the Th.J. Wine. As a result of that conversation with Monticello and further investigation, Plaintiffwas able to obtain a copy of the Monticello Report in 2005, shortly before publication of a book by James Gabler that made the Monticello Report public for the first time. Prior to 2005, Plaintiff did not know of the Monticello Report. The Monticello Report raised serious questions concerning the authenticity of the wine bottles Rodenstock claimed to have "discovered" first in an unidentified location and then later from an undisclosed person. As a result of reading the Monticello Report, Plaintifflearned for the first time that there were credible and serious questions about the authenticity of the Th.J. Wine and commenced an investigation to determine whether the Th.J. Wine was, in fact, connected to Jefferson and to authenticate the vintage and engraving.

66. Plaintiffs investigation has resulted in overwhelming evidence that the "Th.J."

initials and other markings on Plaintiffs and other Th.J. Wine bottles were engraved by an electric power tool or tools with a flexible shaft that did not exist in the 1700's.

67. The engraving tools that existed in the 1700's were spinning copper wheels,

natural stone wheels, and some ferrous wheels. These wheels were powered by foot pedal. During the engraving process, the wheels would rotate in a stationary position and the object to be engraved would be moved by the engraver. Leading experts in this field have, after review, determined that the engravings on the Th.J. Wine bottles are not consistent with this technique

2033988

- 24-

and that the engravings on these bottles were made by an electric power tool with a flexible shaft, such as a dentist's drill, that could be moved during the engraving process while the bottle was held in a stationary position. Such tools did not exist in the 1700's.

68. In 2009, Plaintiffs investigators identified three German residents, referred to

herein as CW3, CW4, and CW5, whom Rodenstock hired to engrave his counterfeit bottles of wine. Both CW3 and CW 4 lived in the same small town in Germany as Rodenstock in the 1980s. CW3 is a former glass engraver who is currently involved in other business. CW3 worked in the trade for many years, beginning his training when he was 16 years old. CW3 stated that he was paid 15 German Marks to engrave seven bottles with a year, producer, and the initials "Th.J." CW3 was shown several photographs of different Th.J. Wine bottles Rodenstock had claimed he "discovered" in the undisclosed location or acquired from an undisclosed person and sold by him through Christie's' and Rodenstock's agents, and CW3 identified the engraving on some of them as his own work

69. CW4 is a glass engraver who has been in the business for over 30 years and

currently still practices in the trade. CW4 has owned his own engraving shop since approximately 1984. In the mid 1980's, soon after CW 4 opened his engraving shop, CW 4 was asked to engrave four or five old bottles with a certain year and producer and the initials "Th.J." CW 4 was shown several photographs of different Th.J. Wine bottles Rodenstock had claimed he "discovered" in the undisclosed location or acquired from an undisclosed person and sold by him through Christie's' and Rodenstock's agents, and CW4 identified the engraving on some of them as his own work.

70. Among the Th.J. Wine bottles that CW3 and CW4 identified as their work are two

Th.J. Wine bottles owned by Plaintiff and one that Rodenstock opened at a tasting attended by Broadbent. CW3 and CW4 confirmed what Plaintiffs experts already knew - that the Th.J. engravings were done recently and with modem tools, thus providing direct evidence that the wines are counterfeit. CW3 and CW4 confirmed this as to all of the Th.J. Wine bottles they

were shown, not just the bottles that they identified as their work.

2033988

- 25 -

71. Plaintiff has also identified a third engraver Rodenstock used to create his

counterfeits. CW5, a glass polisher by trade who trained in glass engraving, owned a glass store for many years, which CW5 closed approximately nine years ago upon retirement. CW5 met Rodenstock in the early 1980's. Rodenstoek asked CW5 to engrave decanters with the coat of arms for Chateau Petrus, Chateau Y quem, and several other chateaus. Rodenstock also hired CW5 to engrave a coat of arms on an old wine bottle that Rodenstoek said came from the Russian Czar's cellar in Eastern Europe. Rodenstock valued the bottle at 100,000 German Marks.

72. On September 30, 1986, Rodenstock held a wine tasting of wines from Chateau

Y quem. Broadbent attended the tasting. During the event, Rodenstock served a bottle of Y quem that he claimed came from the cellar of Czar Nicholas II of Russia. In Broadbent's The Great Vintage Wine Book II, page 167, he describes the tasting as follows:

EARLY TO MID-19TH-CENTURY

Ch Yquern The most beautiful bottle I have ever seen: slender 'club'-shaped, cylindrical, blue glass, most likely Russian, embossed with the arms of the Sauvage family and with applied glass and enamel flower decorations. Original black-edged cork; fairly deep colour, a warm red brown, tea-like, with amber-green rim; nose a combination of singed raisins and old malt whisky, developing in the glass, pungent, prune-like, old stables. Still sweet and surprisingly rich with a positive flavour. This bottle was found by Hardy Rodenstock in Leningrad. The Russian Court and nobility were longtime lovers and buyers of the finest Sauternes.

Opened in the presence of the Comte de Lur-Saluces at Ch d'Yquem, Sept 1986.

Broadbent's original tasting notes of that bottle, including his illustration of a coat of arms engraved thereon, is attached hereto as Exhibit 19. Based on information obtained from CW5,

2033988

- 26 -

CW5 likely engraved the bottle ofYquem that Rodenstoek claimed was once owned by the Russian Czar and which Broadbent described in such glowing terms. In an October 2006 interview, Broadbent was asked about the bottle Rodenstock claimed was once owned by the Russian Czar. Broadbent again came to Rodenstock's defense, stating that: "[Tjhere were lots of old bottles and they are illustrated in my tasting book, bottles which had come from Russia which are absolutely beautiful. Nobody could fake these bottles." Ex. 3 at 49:21-24.

73. CW5 also examined photographs of the Th.J. Wine bottles and confirmed that in

CW5's professional opinion every bottle was done with an electric drill. According to CW5, every engraver has a unique approach to their work similar to one's handwriting. CW5 expressed the opinion that the Th.J. Wine bottles appear to have been engraved by multiple individuals.

74. As part of Plaintiffs investigation, Plaintiffs experts also examined the Th.J.

Wine bottle owned by Forbes and acquired at the December 1985 Christie's auction. Like the Th.J. Wine bottles owned by Plaintiff, Plaintiffs experts concluded that the engraving on the Forbes bottle is fraudulent.

75. Plaintiffs experts also analyzed two bottles ofTh.J. Wine that Rodenstock

donated to Chateau d'Yquem, and a bottle ofTh.J. Wine that was hand delivered by Broadbent and Rodenstock to the Rothschild family, and concluded that the engravings on all three bottles are fraudulent.

76. Plaintiff also discovered additional facts regarding Christie's' representations as to

the number of Th.J. Wine bottles that Rodenstock purportedly found. As discussed above, Christie's represented that the first Th.J. Wine it sold was "one of a dozen of similarly identified wines," and that the second Th.J. Wine it sold was "one of about a dozen." Since those two auctions, the number of bottles ofTh.J. Wine has increased exponentially. Plaintiffs investigation has uncovered evidence showing that Rodenstock has sold more than 30 bottles of alleged Th.J. Wine, including at least five that he sold through Habanos Holdings located in Hong Kong. One of those Hong Kong bottles was subsequently brought into the United States

2033988

- 27 -

and sold to a Dallas, Texas real estate developer, Eric Brauss, through Bordeaux Wine Locators, Inc.

G. Christie's And Rodenstock Are Involved In A Continuing Scheme To Sell Counterfeit Wine.

77. Christie's and Rodenstock have reaffirmed to Plaintiff and others the representations they had previously made in the 1985 Christie's Catalog, Sale Memorandum 314, Christie's' December 9, 1985 press release, and 1986 Christie's Catalog were accurate and complete and that Plaintiffs four Th.J. Wine bottles were part of a cache of bottles discovered in the same cellar as the Th.J. Wine bottle Christie's sold to Forbes in December 1985.

78. In January of2006, Plaintiff sent a facsimile to Rodenstock from New York.

Plaintiff concluded his letter: "Mr. Rodenstock could you please send a brief letter and authenticate the facts that the above bottles of wine, sold through FaIT Vintners, with the engraved initials Th J, were acquired by you or your agents from a walled-up cellar near Paris and that you have every reason to believe that the above bottles of wine once belonged to Thomas Jefferson." A copy of Plaintiffs January 3, 2006 letter to Rodenstock is attached as Exhibit 20.

79. Rodenstock responded to Plaintiffby facsimile sent to New York and stated in

part: "[F]or me the Jefferson bottles are absolutely genuine and - as you wrote rightly - come from a walled-up cellar in Paris. * * * * Only after the experts from CHRISTIE'S have established that the bottle was absolutely genuine, it has been included in the auction" (emphasis added). A copy of Rodenstock's January 10, 2006 letter to Plaintiff is attached as Exhibit 21.

80. But in May of2006, in response to another letter from Plaintiff, Rodenstock

changed his story regarding his discovery of the Th.J. Wine, and now claimed that he "bought these bottles 21 years ago in Paris from people who had offered them to me." Rodenstock refused to identify the people from whom he allegedly had purchased the bottles, and he further

2033988

- 28 -

claimed that these people might now be dead. Rodenstoek asserted that "Christie's has had the engraving, the glass and so on closely examined. So why should I doubt about the genuineness?" (emphasis in original). He reiterated that "the [Th.J.] wine was absolutely genuine." A copy of Rodenstoek's May 11,2006 letter to Plaintiffis attached as Exhibit 22.

81. Christie's has continued to conspire with Rodenstock and/or recklessly facilitate

Rodenstock's promotion of counterfeit wine. One such example is with regard to a German wine collector named Hans-Peter Frericks, who had purchased several bottles of wine from Rodenstock including a bottle ofTh.J. Wine, several imperials of Petrus from the 1920's and an imperial of 1924 Mouton Rothschild. Frericks had approached Sotheby's about auctioning his Rodenstock wine. David Molyneux-Berry was the head of Sotheby's Wine Department at that time and personally inspected Frericks' cellar. During that inspection, Molyneux-Berry identified several counterfeit bottles of wine, all of which carne from Rodenstock. On December

1, 1989, Molyneux-Berry wrote Frericks a letter detailing the reasons why he believed the

imperials of Petrus from the 1920's, the imperial of 1924 Mouton Rothschild, and the bottle of Th.J. Wine that Frericks' purchased from Rodenstock were all counterfeit. A copy of MolyneuxBerry's December 1, 1989 letter to Frericks is attached as Exhibit 23. Sotheby's refused to auction Frericks' Rodenstock bottles.

82. After being rejected by Sotheby's, Frericks approached Christie's. Christie's

agreed to auction the very same Rodenstock bottles that Sotheby's had identified as being counterfeit. When Molyneux-Berry learned Christie's was going to include Frericks' counterfeit

Rodenstock wine in its sale, he contacted Broadbent to discuss the issue. Broadbent claimed that

the Rodenstock bottles, which Molyneux-Berry believed were obvious counterfeits, were actually authentic.

83. On March 21, 1991, Broadbent wrote a lengthy letter to Frericks in which he tried

to placate Frericks' concern that his bottle ofTh.J. Wine was not authentic, in which he stated: "I was extremely cautious and did an immense amount of research simply because the bottles were so extraordinary that I, and Christie's, could not afford to be party to any fraud," that "I have

2033988

- 29 -

done everything to ascertain the truth," and that "I have no reason for doubt" regarding the authenticity of the Th.J. Wine. Broadbent also made sure to clarify that his statements were being made for Christie's, stating: "I personally represent Christie's in their attitude to the Rodenstock affair. II Broadbent, however, failed to mention or disclose Monticello's serious doubts and skepticism about the Th.J. bottles. A copy of Broadbent's March 21, 1991 letter to Frericks is attached as Exhibit 24 (emphasis added to quotations).

84. After Plaintiff sued Rodenstock for fraud on August 31, 2006 (Case

No. 06 CV 6586, currently pending in this Court), Christie's agreed to produce Broadbent for an interview to discuss Plaintiff's allegations. Christie's and Broadbent used the interview as an opportunity to reaffirm Christie's' position that the statements made in the 1985 Christie's Catalog, Sale Memorandum 314, Christie's' December 9,1985 press release, and the 1986 Christie's Catalog were accurate and complete and that the Th.J. Wine was absolutely genuine and connected to Jefferson. See, e,g., Ex. 3 at 14:18-15:3; 83:1-3.

85. During that same time period, Broadbent made similar representations to

Christopher Forbes, who purchased the first Th.J. Wine from Christie's and Rodenstock. As Broadbent relates to Rodenstock in a November 3,2006 letter, after Christie's had purportedly examined a Th.J. bottle and "confirmed, without hesitation, that the engraving was correct, late 18th century and French, using copper wheel," Broadbent "telephoned Christopher Forbes and told him that his bottle is correct" (emphasis in original). A copy of Broadbent's November 3, 2006 letter to Rodenstock is attached as Exhibit 25. In that same letter, Broadbent also commented on Plaintiff's suit against Rodenstock and highlighted why it was important to Christie's that its agreement with Rodenstock to promote the Th.J. Wine should continue, saying that "though Christie's are not directly implicated or being sued, the implications and rumors are very damaging to Christie's and myself" (emphasis in original).

86. Christie's and Broadbent also made similar statements to Basil Shiblaq, another

owner of a Th.J. bottle, in an effort to hinder Plaintiff's investigation and conceal Christie's' misconduct. Plaintiff's representative met with Basil Shiblaq on two occasions in 2006. Shiblaq

2033988

- 30 -

confirmed that he had purchased the Th.J. bottle sold by Christie's at its December 4, 1986 auction and that the bottle had remained at Christie's since its purchase along with the majority of his rarest wines. He further stated that his wine collection includes many other bottles that he purchased from Christie's and which originated from Rodenstock, including very rare bottles of 1921, 1928, and 1929 Petrus. Rodenstock's import records show that he has sold at least twentyone 1921 Petrus magnums to a business in New York named Royal Wine Merchants, Ltd. ("Royal Wine") between 1998 and 2008. Those same records show that Rodenstock also imported at least four magnums of 1928 Petrus and eleven magnums and one double magnum of 1929 Petrus to Royal Wine. Additional discovery has shown that Rodenstock's Hong Kong (Habanos Holdings) and Switzerland (Badaracco SA) agents have imported another twelve magnums of 1921 and 1928 Petrus to the West Coast through Bordeaux Wine Locators, Inc. It appears that Rodenstock has been the primary, if not only, source of these rare large format bottles of Petrus in the wine market.

87. According to CW6, Rodenstock employed CW6 and CW6's family-owned print

shop to create labels for bottles of wine from several different chateaus and vintages, including labels for bottles of Petrus from 1921, 1928, and 1929. CW6's print shop was located in the town in which Rodenstock lived in the 1970s and 1980s. According to CW6, CW6 first met Rodenstock when Rodenstock had employed CW6 to print posters related to Rodenstock's job as a music promoter. CW6 stated that several different times in the 1980s, Rodenstock brought old wine labels into CW6's print shop and asked CW6 for copies on old paper. CW6 positively identified labels from bottles of 1921, 1928, and 1929 Petrus as being CW6's handiwork. Each of the Petrus labels CW6 identified as having created are on bottles that came from Rodenstock. These counterfeit Petrus labels also correspond to the vintages of Petrus that Christie's sold to Shiblaq, which also came from Rodenstock. CW6 also identified the label from a bottle of 1929 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild as his work. Plaintiff purchased that counterfeit bottle of 1929 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild from Christie's at its October 10, 1987 auction.

2033988

- 31 -

88. According to Shiblaq, when he bought those rare bottles of Petrus from Christie's,

it was clear that Shiblaq was bidding against an anonymous buyer. Shiblaq stated that Broadbent privately told Shiblaq during that auction that Shiblaq was bidding against Chateau Petrus. According to Christian Moueix, the owner ofEts. Jean-Pierre Moueix, which owns Chateau Petrus, Petrus has never bid for any wine at auction, did not bid on the wine in question, and that it would have been against its policy to do so. Shiblaq agreed on two separate occasions to allow Plaintiffs representatives to examine his wine collection, including his Th.J. bottle and his rare Petrus bottles. Plaintiffs representative subsequently contacted Christie's to arrange for the promised examination.

89. After learning that Shiblaq was going to allow Plaintiff to examine his bottles,

Broadbent contacted Shiblaq and asked Shiblaq to rescind his permission. Broadbent told Shiblaq that Christie's recently had two experts reexamine his Th.J. bottle and that they were both completely satisfied that the bottle and engraving were genuine. Broadbent told Shiblaq that he would provide written documentation of that reexamination, as well as written documentation of a planned reexamination of Shiblaq's Petrus bottles. Broadbent then advised Shiblaq not to allow Plaintiffs representatives to examine his Th.J. bottle and not to speak to Plaintiffs representatives or anyone else about the Th.J. bottle. Shiblaq followed Broadbent's advice and rescinded his offer to allow Plaintiffs representatives to examine his wine being stored by Christie's.

90. The former head of Christie's' U.S. wine sales, Richard Brierley, told The Wall

Street Journal in 2006 that "more questions could have been asked" by Christie's about the Th.J. Wine. Christie's later pressured Brierley to claim he had been mis-quoted. Broadbent also complained about former general counsel Richard Aydon, who agreed to have Broadbent consent to an interview with Plaintiffs counsel. Shortly after the interview, Aydon, a long time employee, left Christie's.

91. Broadbent also recently contacted Monticello concerning the Th.J. Wine;

specifically regarding John Hailman's book Thomas Jefferson on Wine. John Hailman was the

2033988

- 32 -

nationally syndicated wine columnist for the Washington Post. He has served as judge and panel chairman at numerous international wine competitions for over twenty years. In addition, Hailman served as a prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney's office in Oxford, Mississippi for 33 years. Hailman is currently the Overby Fellow in Journalism at the Overby Center for Southern Journalism and Politics at the University of Mississippi, and an Adjunct Professor of Law.

92. Hailman's book Thomas Jefferson on Wine was published in 2006 and contains an

appendix titled: "The Latest Jefferson Controversy: The Mysterious Case of Bordeaux." In that appendix, Hailman discusses the Th.J. Wine and the controversy surrounding its authenticity. Hailman concludes that: "[I]t would be premature to express here any final conclusion about the authenticity of the [Th.J.] bottles. Personally, however, I stand firmly with the experts at Monticello." John Hailman, Thomas Jefferson on Wine 404 (2006).

93. At the apparent suggestion of Jack Robertson, the Foundation Librarian at

Monticello, Broadbent read Hailman's book. On August 27,2009, Broadbent wrote to Robertson

and asked for Hailman's contact information. Broadbent's letter included a glowing review of Hailman's book, calling it "elegant and erudite." A copy of Broadbent's August 27, 2009 letter to Jack Robertson is attached as Exhibit 26.

94. On August 26, 2009, one day before Broadbent favorably reviewed Hailman's

book, a paperback version of Thomas Jefferson on Wine was released. The paperback version contained a new note to the discussion in the appendix (now called an "epilogue") on the Th.J. Wine. Hailman wrote the following update:

Since those words were written in early 2006, much has transpired . . . , Throughout the controversy, the scholars at Monticello courageously ignored all insults thrown their way by "Rodenstock'' and his enabler Broadbent, and refused to accept the bottles as authentic. Then one day Koch's lead investigator found the smoking gun: proof that the engraving on the bottles was produced by a modern, high-speed electric device similar to a dentist's drill.

2033988

- 33 -

The Rodenstock response, as translated from the German was:

"What's the big deal about wine fraud? Jesus did it.

John Hailrnan, Thomas Jefferson on Wine 429, n.18 (2009) (emphasis added).

95. The statements discussed above by Christie's about the genuineness of the Th.J.

Wine are part of its continuing effort to conceal the truth that Christie's and Rodenstock have worked together to inject many counterfeit bottles of wine into the market place, including the Th.J. Wine. For decades, Rodenstock's counterfeiting activities have been assisted by Broadbent and Christie's' pattern and practice of knowingly and/or recklessly selling counterfeit wine. Christie's' and Broadbent's imprimatur has been a major part of Roden stock's ability to successfully sell his counterfeit wine, including the Th.J. Wine. For example, Robert Parker, a noted international wine critic, attended a Rodenstock tasting in 1995 that Broadbent also attended. Rodenstock served several very old wines that Parker had never before tasted.

According to Parker, Broadbent's attendance gave tremendous credibility to the wine Rodenstock

served. Because of Broadbent's background and unique stature in the wine world, Parker felt that if there was any question about the authenticity of the old wine Rodenstock served, Broadbent would have spotted it before anyone else. The fact that Broadbent was at the tasting and was treating the old vintages as authentic gave Parker reason to believe that the wine was indeed authentic.

96. Christie's' practice of supporting Rodenstock has continued. Rodenstock's name

appears frequently in Christie's' catalogs.

II. THE NEED FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

A. Christie's' Sale Of A Counterfeit 1870 Lafite In 2008.

97. 1870 Chateau Lafite-Rothschild ("1870 Lafite") is a rare and expensive wine. It

is described by Christie's as "one of the great 19th century wines." Because of its high price, it has been counterfeited. In recent years, Christie's has offered for sale and sold bottles of 1870 Lafite at auctions in London, Los Angeles, Amsterdam, and New York. Some of these bottles of

2033988

- 34-

1870 Lafite were counterfeit. Indeed, Christie's has sold the same counterfeit bottle of 1870 Lafite more than once. In December 2008, Plaintiff bought a counterfeit bottIe of 1870 Lafite at a Christie's auction in New York under circumstances described in more detail below. This proves that in recent years Christie's has continued to sell counterfeit wine.

98. Professor Boyan Jovanic of New York University has analyzed increases in the

price of 1870 Lafite in an article entitled "Bubbles in Prices of Exhaustible Resources."

Professor Jovanic's article discusses how the price of the 1870 Lafite has increased over time to bubble levels, but levels that are sustainable because of the unique nature of the rare wine market where wine is often purchased and held as an investment. These high prices create the financial incentive for counterfeiters to make counterfeit bottles of 1870 Lafite.

99. Professor Jovanic believes that the 1870 Lafite "serves primarily as an

investment" because "there is little evidence of its stock being consumed as time passes, but

plenty of evidence of continued active trading in the asset at auctions run by Christie's [and

others]." Active trading at auctions of high-priced wines means repeated commissions for auction houses. The fact that most people collect the wines rather than drink them protects counterfeit wine from exposure by uncorking or tasting.

100. At the December 5,2008 Christie's auction in New York at Rockefeller Plaza (which was sale 2075), Christie's offered a counterfeit 1870 Lafite for sale as Lot 598. Before the auction, Christie's distributed a catalog throughout the world, including in New York, describing the wine it was offering for sale. It was available in hard copy, and also electronically at Christie's' website, at www.christies.com/LotFinder. The 1870 Lafite was described as "one of the great 19th-Century wines." The estimate of the sales price was $3,500 to $5,000. Christie's' advertisement and assertions in its catalog for this bottle of wine underscored the scarcity of this particular vintage, explaining: "It is not often that the 1870 Lafite comes up for sale." Statements like these are intended by Christie's to increase interest in and the sales price

of the wine and to confirm its authenticity.

2033988

- 35 -

101. Discussing the provenance of this bottle (Lot 598), Christie's explained that "this particular bottle of Lafite was bought by an industry professional in a Christie's auction and stored in temperature control ever since." Christie's had previously sold this bottle at a December 11,2002 auction (Christie's sale 1165) as Lot 295. The price estimate for this bottle at the December of2002 auction was $2,600 to $3,500. It sold for $4,025, above the high estimate. This is an example of a counterfeit wine gaining a provenance from a prior auction.

102. Potential bidders like Plaintiff were able to see and read the statements in the December 5, 2008 auction catalog in New York. The December 5, 2008 auction was open to consumers located in New York. Plaintiff was among the pool of potential bidders for the bottles described in the December 5, 2008 auction catalog. An expert that Plaintiff had retained to examine other bottles of wine in Plaintiffs collection also received a copy of the catalog before the December 5, 2008 auction. The bottle of 1870 Lafite offered by Christie's in that catalog was so clearly counterfeit that Plaintiffs expert was able to identify issues with its authenticity simply by viewing the picture in the catalog. Despite employing its own wine experts and despite having had two separate opportunities to physically examine the bottle of 1870 Lafite (before the 2002 and 2008 auctions), Christie's offered the counterfeit bottle for sale to consumers in New York at its December 5, 2008 auction.

103. After Plaintiff purchased the bottle of counterfeit 1870 Lafite for $4,200 at the December 5, 2008 auction, Plaintiffs expert analyzed the bottle and conclusively determined that it is counterfeit. The label on the bottle has cob-webbing that gives the appearance that the bottle is very old. As Christie's' expert and experienced Wine Department personnel should have known given the volume of wine they handle, authentic cob-webbing comes from dirt on the label that accumulates over decades. Christie's sold this bottle on two separate occasions, and therefore had two opportunities to properly inspect it. Upon inspection by Plaintiffs expert, the same inspection a potential purchaser would have expected of Christie's before it (twice) promoted the wine in its catalog and elsewhere as authentic and "one of the great 19th century

2033988

- 36 -

wines," it was determined the cob-webbing on the label on this 1870 Lafite is printed to simulate agmg.

104. To further analyze the 1870 Lafite that Plaintiff purchased from Christie's in December of2008, the bottle was taken to the laboratory of Dr. Philip Hubert at the University of Bordeaux. Pre-1945 wine does not contain the element Cesium 137. Cesium 137 is a trace element that was first produced from the fallout of the atomic bombs in 1945. By 1953, Cesium 137 had permeated the earth and traces of Cesium 137 can be found in all wine produced after 1952 - but not wine made from pre-1945 harvests. Such testing does not harm the wine, is relatively easy to perform, and is not costly relative to the wine's market value if authentic. When tested, the 1870 Lafite sold by Christie's to Plaintiff had traces of Cesium 137, which indicates that the wine is from the second half of the 20th Century or later, and not from the 19th Century.

105. Based on the opinions of two experts, the 1870 Lafite sold by Christie's in December of 2008 is counterfeit. Christie's' representations described above regarding the 1870 Lafite, which were material to the transaction, were false when made, and were made by Christie's knowingly or with reckless disregard to the truth.

106. As explained below and throughout this Complaint, the counterfeit 1870 Lafite is part of Christie's' long running pattern and practice of selling counterfeit wine, which began at least as early as the 1980s and continues today. That pattern and practice supports Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief.

B. Christie's' Is Among The Leaders Of Counterfeit Wine Sales.

107. Based on data of the sales of commonly counterfeited wine between the years 1998 and 2008, Christie's is among the leaders in selling such wine.

108. For example, Christie's sold eight magnums of 1947 Chateau Lafleur during this time period. Based on information from Chateau Lafleur, however, only five magnums of the 1947 vintage were ever produced. Some of the eight magnums Christie's sold are likely

2033988

- 37 -

counterfeit. Those sales also further link Christie's and Rodenstock, as Rodenstock's records reveal that he imported at least eighteen magnums of 1947 Chateau Lafleur to Royal Wine in New York. It is likely that some of the 1947 Chateau Lafleur magnums Christie's sold originated with Rodenstock. By comparison, Sotheby's has never sold a magnum of 1947 Chateau Lafleur.

109. Christie's is also among the leaders in selling suspicious large format bottles of wine. A standard sized wine bottle holds 750 milliliters. Wine is also bottled in larger formats, including magnums (holding 1,500 ml or two standard bottles), double magnums (holding 3,000 ml or four standard bottles), jeroboams (holding 4,500 ml or six standard bottles), and imperials (holding 6,000 ml or eight standard bottles). Large format bottles are commonly counterfeited because of the high price they command at auction due to factors such as the rarity oflarge format bottles and the fact that the wine ages more slowly in large format bottles. A pattern emerges from auction sales records. A significant number oflarge format bottles of wine were

sold almost exclusively by Christie's, Acker Merrall, and Zachys and were not sold at all by

Sotheby's. Specifically, Zachys sold forty-seven, Acker Merrall sold eighty-five, and Christie's sold 107 large format bottles from twenty-seven different producers and vintages. Sotheby's, however, did not sell a single large format from those vintages and producers. Based on Sotheby's overall market share, such a stark discrepancy is unexpected and evidences that Sotheby's is much more careful in its vetting of the wine it sells. Christie's, on the other hand, is the leader in selling these questionable large format bottles. A copy of the data comparing sales of large-format bottles among the leading auction houses is attached as Exhibit 27.

110. The number of questionable large format bottles sold by Christie's gains even more significance when compared to Rodenstock's imports of that same wine. From 1998 to 2008, Rodenstock imported approximately 818 bottles to Royal Wine in New York City. Approximately ninety percent of those bottles were large formats. Those 818 bottles would be worth over $7.8 million if authentic. A chart showing Rodenstock's imports is attached as Exhibit 28. Comparing the 818 bottles Rodenstock imported to the questionable large format bottles identified in Exhibit 27, the data shows that Rodenstock imported ninety-two of those

2033988

- 38 -

questionable large-format bottles. Among the major wine auction houses, ninety-three of those same types of bottles were sold during that same time period - Zachys sold twenty-six, Acker Merrall sold thirty-nine, and Christie's sold twenty-eight. Sotheby's, however, did not sell any of those bottles. A copy of the data comparing Rodenstock's imports to those sold at auction is attached as Exhibit 29. Additional charts showing Christie's' sales of commonly counterfeited bottles and Rodenstock's imports of those same bottles, and comparing Rodenstock's imports to the total bottles auctioned in the United States, are attached as Exhibit 30. This data supports the other allegations herein regarding Christie's pattern and practice of selling counterfeit wine in association with Rodenstock.

111. Additional data has confirmed the link between Rodenstock and Christie's and Christie's' pattern and practice of selling Rodenstock's counterfeit wine. Between 1998 and 2008, Rodenstock imported at least fifteen magnums of 1947 Chateau L'Eglise Clinet to Royal Wine in New York. In the book Michael Broadbent's Vintage Wine: Fifty Years of Tasting Three Centuries of Wines (2002), Broadbent describes Rodenstock's efforts to promote L'Eglise Clinet wine: "Hardy Rodenstock was one of the first fully to appreciate the outstanding quality of a wine relatively unknown to the great wide world, and overshadowed by the likes of Petrus and, more recently, Le Pin" (p. 99); "One of Rodenstock's pet wines and unleashed on his guests at fairly regular intervals" (p. 127); "Hardy Rodenstock [has] been working hard to promote the wines of this tiny chateau" (p. 137); "Hardy Rodenstock has done a lot to draw attention to Durantou's brilliance [L'Eglise Clinet] and constantly included the wine blind in the company of the first growths" (p. 156). Christie's sold at least two magnums of 1947 L'Eglise Clinet between 1998 and 2008, again linking Christie's to Rodenstock. See Ex. 27. Sotheby's however, has not sold any during that time frame. Plaintiff asserts based on information and belief that Sotheby's considers magnums of 1947 L'Eglise Clinet to be counterfeit.

112. Between 1998 and 2008, Rodenstock imported at least twenty-one magnums of 1921 Petrus to Royal Wine in New York. See id. An additional eleven magnums of 1921 Petrus were imported through Bordeaux Wine Locators, Inc. into the United States from intermediaries

2033988

- 39 -

commonly used by Rodenstock - Habanos Holdings in Hong Kong and Badaracco SA in Switzerland. Rodenstock's import records show that during that time frame he imported at least forty-six large format bottles of Petrus of vintages from 1945 and earlier to Royal Wine in New York. According to both Jean Claude Berrouet, the former technical director of Etablissements Jean-Pierre Moueix (the owner of Petrus) and renowned winemaker of Petrus, and Francois Veyssiere, the Petrus cellar-master, before discussing Plaintiffs 1921 Petrus magnums, neither had ever heard of a Petrus magnum from before 1945 and do not believe Petrus bottled any pre- 1945 magnums. In addition, Christian Moueix, the President of Etablissements Jean-Pierre Moueix, has been described as having grave doubts that larger bottle sizes were used by Chateau Petrus before 1945, and has been quoted as saying: "All I can say for certain is that these imperiales of 1921 are highly improbable - they would have made no sense at that time." J ancis Robinson, Wine World's Tangled Web, Financial Times, March 16,2007, available at

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/50c352fc-d34b-ll db-829f-OOOb5dfl 0621.html. Broadbent has

himself recognized the improbability of Petrus bottling any large format bottles before 1945:

"Where Hardy Rodenstock finds these wines I know not. There are simply no records of production, of stock or sales prior to 1945." Michael Broadbent's Vintage Wine: Fifty Years of Tasting Three Centuries of Wines 38 (2002). Despite that fact, Christie's has sold at least fortyseven large format bottles of Petrus of vintages from 1945 or earlier. Christie's is the largest seller oflarge format pre-1945 Petrus. A copy of data showing the sales by major auction houses oflarge format Petrus from 1945 or earlier is attached as Exhibit 31.

113. Rodenstock's import records show that between 1998 and 2008 he imported at least fifty-three large format bottles of 1947 Cheval Blanc to Royal Wine in N ew York. When asked about the large number of large format bottles originating from Rodenstock, Pierre Lurton, the estate manager for the Chateau, stated that he felt those large format bottles were suspicious and believed that Rodenstock was "a crook. n In addition, CW6 has stated that Rodenstock hired him to create copies of 1947 Cheval Blanc labels. Despite the fact that the Chateau questioned the bottles and the fact that counterfeit labels were in the market, Christie's sold at least fifty-

2033988

- 40 -

seven large format bottles of 1947 Cheval Blanc in the United States, and likely many others at its foreign auctions.

114. According to auction records, Christie's has sold thirty-five magnums of 1945 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild. Some of that wine was counterfeit. Rodenstock is a major source of counterfeit 1945 Mouton-Rothschild. According to records showing Rodenstock's imports to Royal Wine in New Yark City, since 1998 Rodenstock has imported thirty bottles, eighty magnums, and three jeroboams of 1945 Mouton-Rothschild. The label on bottles of 1945 Mouton-Rothschild states that the Chateau produced 1,475 magnums and 24 jeroboams of the 1945 vintage. Rodenstock, therefore, purportedly sold nearly six percent of the entire production of magnums and nearly thirteen percent of the entire production of jeroboams to one store in New York City between 1998 and 2008. Rodenstock has likely sold many more bottles of 1945 Mouton-Rothschild before 1998, to other people in New York, and to people in other locations both in the United States and around the world. For one person to be the source for such a large amount of that extremely rare vintage is clear evidence that most ifnot all of Roden stock's bottles of 1945 Mouton-Rothschild are counterfeit. Such a large volume should have alerted Christie's that the market was flooded with counterfeit bottles of 1945 Mouton-Rothschild.

C. Christie's Has Sold Counterfeit Wine To Other Victims.

115. Despite evidence that Rodenstock had flooded the market with counterfeit bottles of 1945 Mouton-Rothschild, as discussed above, Christie's nevertheless sold counterfeit bottles of 1945 Mouton-Rothschild to unsuspecting victims. For example, the Coburg Palais hotel in Vienna, Austria, owned by Peter Piihringer, purchased a case containing six magnums of 1945 Mouton-Rothschild from Christie's. Christie's sold the case as lot number 62 at its September 28, 2006 auction held in Los Angeles, California. The case of 1945 Mouton-Rothschild is suspected to be counterfeit according to its purchaser.

116. On November 8,2008, at a Mouton-Rothschild tasting hosted by the Managing Director of Mouton-Rothschild Herve Berland and Swiss wine writer Rene Gabriel,

2033988

- 41 -

representatives of the Coburg Palais hotel served one of the bottles of 1945 Mouton-Rothschild purchased form Christie's. Mr. Berland inspected the bottle and noted several differences between it and an authentic 1945 Mouton-Rothschild. On the label of the bottle sold by Christie's, the print of the vintage on the upper section was slightly higher than it should be, the black ink of the "v" of the word "victoire" was covering the gold ink of the large "v," and the "9" in the vintage print on the main label was closed. In addition, the capsule of the Christie's bottle was of a deeper red and the banderole of the coat of arms was facing downward. Each of these characteristics of the Christie's bottle differed from an authentic 1945 Mouton-Rothschild. The Christie's bottle was then opened and tasted. Several people in attendance had tasted authentic bottles of 1945 Mouton-Rothschild, including Messrs. Berland and Gabriel. Each of those in attendance agreed that the Christie's bottle was not an authentic 1945 Mouton-Rothschild. Mr. Berland called the bottle a counterfeit without hesitation. Another bottle from the Christie's case has also been tasted and was also determined to be counterfeit.

117. Simon Klocker, the Sommelier and Portfolio Manager for the Coburg Palais hotel, was in attendance and also tasted the counterfeit bottles from Christie's. After the tasting, Mr. Klocker contacted David Elswood of Christie's to discuss the counterfeit wine. Elswood's only response was that it was not Christie's' responsibility.

D. Former Christie's Employees Have Confirmed Christie's' Pattern And Practice Of Selling Counterfeit Wine.

118. Former Christie's employees who have met with Plaintiffs representatives have confirmed that Christie's has been aware of the existence of counterfeit wine and has often had direct knowledge that the wine it was offering for sale was counterfeit and nevertheless sold it.

119. CW7 is a former regional sales head of Christie's' wine and worked at Christie's from 2000 through 2007, had regular interactions with Christie's executives both in and out of Christie's' Wine Department, including interactions with Michael Broadbent, and was responsible for managing and overseeing many of Christie's' wine auctions. According to CW7,

2033988

- 42-

Christie's has, from time to time, culled out counterfeit wine from collections, demonstrating that it is possible for an auction house to identify and remove such wine from collections being offered for salc. The instances of Christie's removing counterfeit wine from collections, however, was not Christie's' general practice. In many other instances, according to CW7, Christie's knowingly sold the counterfeit wine at auctions without regard to authenticity and notwithstanding its catalog descriptions and promotional materials and assertions.

120. CW7 described Hardy Rodenstock as a "classic counterfeiter." According to CW7, the sale of Roden stock's Jefferson bottles in the 1980's gave Christie's prestige that made it easier for Christie's to attract new purchasers and to acquire old wine collections for auction. CW7 stated that if the Th.J. Wine were offered to Christie's while CW7 was employed there, CW7 would not sell the Th.J. Wine knowing that Monticello had written a report that cast doubt on the legitimacy of the wine.

121. CW7 identified repeated instances where suspicious or counterfeit wine was

knowingly sold at Christie's' auctions in London. For example, CW7 identified a Christie's sale in 1999 in London at which Christie's sold a bottle, a magnum, and a double magnum of 1945 Romani Conti. According to CW7, at least the double magnum was counterfeit. CW7 had seen a double magnum of 1945 Romani Conti while working at Sotheby's earlier in CWTs career and Sotheby's had rejected it as counterfeit. According to CW7, Sotheby's was concerned because, among other reasons, in 1945 the vineyards in France were still recovering from World War II and it was therefore highly improbable that those vineyards would have been able to find sufficient glass to produce such large bottles.

122. According to CW7, most of the meetings related to counterfeit wine that CW7 attended at Christie's were memorialized in emails or memoranda and were stored in Christie's files.

123. CW8 is a former head of Christie's' Wine Department who worked at Christie's from 1997 through 2000, had regular interactions with Christie's executives both within and outside of Christie's' Wine Department, including interactions with Michael Broadbent, and was

2033988

- 43 -

responsible for managing and overseeing many of Christie's' wine auctions. CW8 was hired by

Christie's former CEO Christopher Davidge to replace Broadbent as the head of the Wine

Department, CW8 was told by Davidge that Broadbent had become "problematic," that he had a large ego, and that he was making decisions that would put Christie's at risk. CW8 stated that Broadbent did not take his replacement very well and refused to move out of the office

traditionally occupied by the head of Christie's' Wine Department.

124. According to CW8, after CW8 was at Christie's a short time, CW8 was informed

that Christie's had a small wine cellar that contained good wine used to entertain top clients.

CW8 asked for the key to the cellar, but no one was able to locate it. CW8 asked Broadbent for

access to the cellar but Broadbent refused. Six months later, CW8 obtained access to the cellar

from Christie's' security. CW8 discovered a good collection of wine in the cellar, but noticed

that tucked away in the corner was a number oflarge format bottles of Petrus that CW8

• 1 .p,' "'X1Q' ' .. ' .. ;] . . A ;] ., L' ,,....,,.. • • ,

recogmzea as counter ... elt. '-' v. v lilillateu an mquny anu determmed lflrOugn Christie's' recoras

that the counterfeit Petrus was being stored for a customer named Basil Shiblaq, who, as noted

above, had also purchased a Th.J. bottle from Christie's. Christie's had sold Shiblaq the wine and then agreed to store it. CW8 also determined that the counterfeit bottles originated from Hardy Rodenstock. According to CW8, knowledge of the counterfeit bottles was common throughout Christie's' Wine Department and among other Christie's executives. For example, CW8 spoke

with another Christie's employee who agreed that the bottles were problematic but stated that Broadbent insisted that the bottles be stored at Christie's. CW8 requested that the Christie's

employee prepare a report on the counterfeit bottles. According to CW8, a report was written

that stated that the bottles all came from Rodenstock and were sold to Shiblaq on Broadbent's recommendation. CW8 does not have a copy of that report, but stated that it still may be in Christie's' files. When CW8 confronted Michael Broadbent about the counterfeit wine sold to

Shiblaq, Broadbent contended that the bottles were genuine. Broadbent even produced what CW8 called "fake experts" to corroborate Broadbent's conclusions, although when CW8 questioned Broadbent's "experts" they were found to not have the qualifications or knowledge

2033988

- 44-

necessary to opine on authenticity as Broadbent had asked them to do. According to CW8, the bottles Broadbent and his "fake experts" authenticated were so obviously counterfeit that CW8 could not understand why Broadbent was defending them. To CW8's knowledge, Shiblaq was never informed about the dispute surrounding his bottles. CW7 has confirmed that the counterfeit bottles were still in Christie's' cellar while CW7 was a Christie's employee.

125. CW8 subsequently found other bottles that had been authenticated by Broadbent despite being counterfeit. For example, according to CW8, Christie's sold a bottle of brandy for over $30,000 that Broadbent had authenticated but which CW8 examined and found to be a poor counterfeit. CW8 believes that the bottle of brandy originated with Rodenstock. According to CW8, a great deal of counterfeit wine Broadbent authenticated appeared to come from two different sources, one located in Hong Kong and another in Switzerland. CW8 was able to determine that both of these sources were used by Rodenstock to introduce his counterfeit wine into the market.

126. CW8 never knew of Broadbent refusing to sell any wine because it was counterfeit or questionable. CW8 tested his beliefs about Broadbent's willingness to sell counterfeit wine by asking Broadbent to give CW8 his opinion on a bottle of wine CW8 knew was clearly counterfeit. Broadbent examined the bottle and declared that it was genuine. According to CW8, this pattern was repeated several times.

127. According to CW8, Broadbent and Christie's also sold wine that had been rejected as counterfeit by other major auction houses. CW8 recorded the findings about Broadbent and the counterfeit wine Christie's was selling in several intemalletters and emails to a senior executive at Christie's outside the Wine Department. Thus, Christie's executives outside Christie's' Wine Department knew that counterfeit or suspected counterfeit wine was being sold by Christie's. CW8 did not retain copies of the correspondence when he left Christie's, but believes them to be in Christie's' files.

128. Plaintiff has received further insight into Christie's' pattern and practice offailing to adequately protect its customers from counterfeit wine through CW9, who is also a former

2033988

- 45 -

Christie's employee. CW9 worked in Christie's' Wine Department in New York from 1996 to 2000. During that time, CW9 had responsibilities that brought CW9 into direct contact with Christie's customers and the management of Christie's' Wine Department including Broadbent. For example, CW9 was involved in organizing a high-profile, VIP wine tasting in New York in 2000 before CW9 left Christie's' employ. That tasting was attended by Christie's' top customers and the top management of Christie's' Wine Department. Rodenstock also attended the Christie's tasting in New York.

129. According to CW9, Broadbent was considered the "King of Wine" and had wideranging authority from the executives at Christie's to conduct Christie's business as he saw fit.

130. According to CW9, when old vintage and expensive wine was consigned to Christie's in New York it was rarely scrutinized. CW9 described Christie's as willing to sell any bottle of wine that came through its doors. According to CW9, Christie's would make some inquiry when a purchaser complained about wine and it would attempt to return the wine to the seller. If that did not work, CW9 described Christie's as resorting to delay and stall tactics in the hope that the purchaser would become frustrated and give up. According to CW9, short of a purchaser's complaint, Christie's did not make any inquiry or investigation into the authenticity of the wine it sold. As CW9 described it, "Christie's just did not care."

E. Christie's Has Cooperated With Another Source Of Counterfeit Wine As Part Of Its Pattern And Practice Of Selling Counterfeit Wine.

131. Hardy Rodenstock is not the only source from which Christie's has knowingly sold counterfeit wine. Christie's has also done business with California resident Rudy Kurniawan and has done so despite having first-hand knowledge that Kurniawan's cellar contains counterfeit wine.

132. Christie's has first-hand knowledge that Kurniawan is a source of counterfeit wine. On the cover of Christie's' catalog for its April 27, 2007 auction, Christie's featured six magnums of 1982 Chateau Le Pin Pomerol, and offered those bottles for sale. The magnums

2033988

- 46-

were consigned by Kurniawan. Before that auction, Christie's filed a VCCl Financing Statement on April 10, 2007, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 32, recording a security interest in 133 bottles of wine owned by Kurniawan, including six magnums of 1982 Chateau Le Pin.

Christie's' April 27, 2007 auction catalog described the six magnums of Le Pin as the "Property of a fine wine connoisseur." All but three of the bottles listed on the VCC 1 Financing Statement (Exhibit 32) were also included in the Apri127, 2007 auction catalog and also described as the "Property of a fine wine connoisseur." The "Important Notices" section of the catalog stated that for lots in which "Christie's has a direct financial interest ... [s ]uch property is identified in the catalogue by the symbol 0 next to the lot number." Christie's did not, however, disclose its security interest in any of Kurniawan's wine including the six magnums of 1982 Chateau Le Pin.

133. Le Pin is a Bordeaux wine that is produced in extremely small numbers.

According to Wine Spectator, a bottle of 1982 Le Pin can sell for over $4,000, and offering six magnums ofLe Pin at auction is of great significance to wine collectors. The wine was described in the catalog as in "pristine condition" and Christie's estimated a sales price of $60,000 to $100,000, indicating that Christie's had already inspected the bottles. After the catalog for the April 27, 2007 auction was sent out, but before the auction took place, the Chateau contacted Christie's and informed it that, based on the picture on the cover of the catalog, the bottles of Le Pin appeared to be counterfeit. In response, Christie's pulled them from the sale, but has never explained why the counterfeit wine was featured on the cover of its catalog, why the Chateau had to intervene, and why the Chateau had not been asked by Christie's about the authenticity of the bottles before the sale. From at least this point, if not before, Christie's was put on notice that Kurniawan was a source of counterfeit wine.

134. At auctions conducted by Acker Merrall & Condit Company on January 27,2006 and October 20,2006, Kurniawan offered for sale eight magnums of 1947 Chateau Lafleur. Based on information from the Chateau, however, only five magnums of the 1947 Lafleur were produced, meaning that at least some of Kurniawan's 1947 Chateau Lafleur magnums are counterfeit. At an April 25, 2008 auction also conducted by Acker Merrall, Kurniawan offered

2033988

- 47-

107 bottles of wine purportedly from the Domaine Ponsot, which were expected to sell for over $600,000. Shortly before the auction, Laurent Ponsot, the fourth-generation proprietor of the vineyard, examined photos of the bottles and came to the conclusion that most of them were counterfeit. Ponsot contacted John Kapon of Acker Merrall and asked that he remove the bottles from the auction, which Acker Merrall consented to do midway through the April 25 auction. The removal of Kurniawan's counterfeit wine from the Acker Merrall auction was widely reported in the wine press, and again served to put Christie's on notice that Kurniawan's cellar contained questionable bottles of wine.

135. Christie's has continued to do business with Kurniawan despite Kurniawan's prior attempt to sell counterfeit wine through Christie's. At its September 12,2009 auction, Christie's offered approximately 60 lots of wine from Kurniawan. Before the auction, CWI0, a highranking executive at Christie's' New York auction partner, learned that Christie's was planning to

sell Kurniawan's wine. Knowing Kurniawan's history, CWIO wrote to Christie's demanding that

it withdraw all of the items from Kurniawan being offered in the September 12, 2009 auction. CWIO was concerned that his company's reputation would be harmed if its partner and the beneficiary of its license did business with a known source of counterfeit wine. CW10 also spoke with Charles Curtis, Christie's' Head of North American Wine Sales, and asked him to withdraw all of the Kurniawan lots, but Curtis refused, stating: "Weare an auction house, and auction houses make their money by auctioning." Christie's denied CWI O's requests, refused to withdraw Kurniawan's wine from its auction, and sold it without disclosing that it came from Kurniawan.

136. The pattern was repeated before Christie's' October 15,2009 auction. At that auction, Christie's offered thirty-two lots of Kurniawan's wine. Despite having recently withdrawn from auction between $60,000 and $100,000 worth of Kurniawan's counterfeit wine (wine that Christie's had featured on the cover of its catalog), Christie's referred to Kurniawan in its October 15,2009 catalog as "a long time friend to Christie's" and represented that "this consignor knows Burgundy." Christie's did not reveal that its "long time friend" was Kurniawan

2033988

- 48 -

or that Kurniawan had a history of offering counterfeit wine for sale through Christie's and other auction houses. After learning that Christie's was again planning to sell Kurniawan's wine, CWIO repeated his concerns to Christie's at a meeting with Charles Curtis and Christie's' inhouse counsel Sandra Cobden. Christie's again refused to withdraw Kurniawan's wine, telling CW10 that Christie's was more concerned with gaining a profit on the sale than on refusing to sell wine from a questionable source. This time, CW10's was not the only voice of warning. Plaintiff asserts based on information and belief that Peter Hellman, who has written several articles for the Wine Spectator regarding counterfeit wine, tried to convince Charles Curtis that Kurniawan's wine should be removed from Christie's' October 15 auction because of the likelihood that it contained counterfeits. Christie's also ignored Hellman's warnings and again sold Kurniawan's wine at auetion, again not disclosing that the wine came from Kurniawan.

137. The multiple warnings Christie's received against selling Kurniawan's wine have

been "vel! founded. Plaintiff asserts based on information and belief that some of the wine

Christie's sold at its September 12 and October 15, 2009 auctions had been previously sold by Kurniawan and returned because it was counterfeit. Before April 2008, Kurniawan sold over $2 million of old and rare wine directly to a collector named Andy Gordon. Gordon later approached Sotheby's about auctioning his Kurniawan wine, but Sotheby's refused after it discovered a large number of questionable and counterfeit bottles. After subsequent negotiations with Kurniawan, Gordon returned the bottles but retained a security interest in them. Using the Gordon Family Trust as the secured party, Gordon filed UCCI Financing Statements on May 6, 2009, copies of which are attached as Exhibits 33 and 34, and on August 14,2009, copies of which are attached as Exhibits 35 and 36. The August 14 statements recorded a security interest in "all wines of [Kurniawan] to be auctioned by Christie's or affiliates during 2009 and 20 I 0". A portion of the Kurniawan wine Gordon purchased and returned appears to have been sold at Christie's' September 2009 auction based upon partial releases filed on September 24, 2009 of "all of the wines sold by CHRISTIE'S 12 September 2009 as described on Schedule 'A' attached hereto." Copies of the September 24,2009 Form UCC3 Financing Statement Amendments are

2033988

- 49 -

attached as Exhibits 37 and 38. Although Christie's was warned against auctioning Kurniawan's wine by at least two different sources and had first-hand knowledge that Kurniawan was a source of counterfeit wine, Christie's nevertheless sold wine owned by Kurniawan that it appears at least one other auction house had refused to sell because the collection included counterfeits.

F. Plaintiff Has Purchased Additional Counterfeit Wine Sold By Christie's.

138. Plaintiffhas purchased from Christie's at least thirty-two bottles of wine purportedly from vintages in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, at an aggregate purchase price of approximately $33,737.08, which he later discovered are either counterfeit or which have serious questions as to their authenticity.

139. In early 2007, Plaintiffs ongoing investigations ofthe Th.J. Wine and facts uncovered by discovery in his suit against Rodenstock made Plaintiff suspicious that the Th.1. Wine sale might not be an isolated instance of counterfeit wine. Accordingly, Plaintiff retained a recognized expert in fine and rare wines to examine all of the bottles he has purchased from Christie's and to assess whether any of them are counterfeit. Plaintiff was advised later that year that several of the bottles purchased from Christie's that the expert examined are counterfeit or likely counterfeit. Thus, Plaintiff has only recently discovered that Christie's has sold him numerous bottles of counterfeit wine, as well as several other likely counterfeit wines, in past years. Because these bottles are counterfeit or likely counterfeit, they are worth far less than the amount for which they were sold. These wines were knowingly auctioned at inflated prices because of Christie's' failure to disclose the fact that they are counterfeit or that they are likely counterfeit.

140. Plaintiff could not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined these bottles were counterfeit at any time before he was advised by his expert in 2007 that the bottles bore indicia of fraud, including evidence of counterfeiting such as unusual or inappropriate capsules, labels, and bottles, and unusual or inappropriate bottle condition. While these indicia should have been recognizable by Christie's because, for example, of its self-advertised standing

2033988

- 50 -

as experts in the wine auction industry and its experience in analyzing and authenticating wine, they were not recognizable to Plaintiff. Moreover, Christie's, despite its boilerplate disclaimer, had made so many glowing and detailed descriptions of the wine it sold that were completely inconsistent with its boilerplate disclaimers that it was not reasonable for the wine buying public, including Plaintiff, to suspect or assume that counterfeit wine was a material problem or that it might exist in Christie's' auctions. Christie's, although it had specific and unique knowledge of the counterfeit wine problem, did not do anything to raise awareness of that problem. By aggressively promoting the wine it sold as authentic through its own descriptions, publications, and advertisements, Christie's' representations far outweighed the general boilerplate disclaimer in its catalogs.

141. The following is a description of counterfeit wines Christie's has sold to Plaintiff.

As discussed throughout this Complaint, the counterfeit wine sales described below are not isolated incidents but are examples of Christie's' pattern and practice of selling counterfeit wine to consumers at-large.

1. Christie's' September 15, 1990 Auction.

142. Christie's held an auction on September 15, 1990, at the University Club of Chicago titled "The Flatt Collection of Finest and Rarest Wines." The auction was run by Christie's Wine, Inc., a subsidiary of Christie, Manson & Woods International Inc. (now Christie's Inc.), aNew York corporation. At this time, Broadbent was the Senior Director of Christie's' Wine Department. Before the auction, Christie's distributed a catalog throughout the world, including in New York, describing the wine it was offering for sale. This catalog represented that: "Unless otherwise stated, Bordeaux wines are chateau-bottled." The catalog stated that the wines were described as correctly as could be ascertained, and did not invite bidders to inspect the wines prior to auction. Only a selection of the wines would be available for viewing in the sale room. Potential bidders like Plaintiff were able to see and read the statements in the September 15, 1990 auction catalog in New York. The September 15, 1990

2033988

- 51 -

auction was open to bidders located in New York. Plaintiff was among the pool of potential bidders for the bottles described in the September 15, 1990 auction catalog.

143. The September 15, 1990 auction catalog offered the following wine for sale and included the following representations:

e Lot 387, represented to be a 1881 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild, offered at a price of "$1000-1500" and described as:

Chateau Mouton-Rothschild-Vintage 1881

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

Recorked by Whitwham & Co. in 1974, with excellent deep color and topshoulder level; no capsule and only a remnant of the original label

" ... a bottle, recorked by Whitwham's of Altrincham, showed very well at Lloyd Flatt's Mouton tasting in April 1986; deep, fine, rich and lovely appearance; spicy bouquet; dry, delicate and excellent flavour, sound and of unexpected quality and length." 4/86

144. Plaintiff relied on the representation as to the producer and vintage of the wine, and, on September 15, 1990, purchased the bottle described above for $1,100.00.

145. The representations described in paragraphs 142-43 were material to the transaction, were false when made, and were made by Christie's knowingly or with reckless disregard to the truth. The bottle sold to Plaintiff and labeled as a bottle of 1881 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild is, in fact, counterfeit.

2. Christie's' Spring 1990 Auction

146. Plaintiff believes that Christie's held an auction of fine and rare wines in or around the spring of 1990. At this auction, Christie's knowingly made false representations as to producer and vintage concerning a bottle Christie's alleged to be a 1901 Chateau Mouton-

2033988

- 52 -

Rothschild and a bottle Christie's alleged to be a 1904 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild. Plaintiff

believes that Broadbent and Christie, Manson & Woods International Inc. (now Christie's Inc.), a

New York corporation, made these representations in writing in Christie's' catalog for this

auction, which was distributed by Christie's throughout the world, including New York, in the

spring of 1990. Plaintiff was among the pool of potential bidders for the bottles described in the

auction catalog. At this time, Broadbent was the Senior Director of Christie's' Wine Department.

147. Plaintiff relied on the representations as to the producers and vintages of the

wines, and, on May 31, 1990, purchased the bottles described above for the following prices: e The 1901 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild for $2,500.00.

e The 1904 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild for $1,675.00.

148. The representations described in paragraph 146 were material to these

transactions, were false when made, and were made by Christie's knowingly or with reckless

highly questionable as to authenticity.

3. Christie's' June 23,1990 Auction.

149. Christie's held an auction of Fine and Rare Wines on June 23, 1990, at the

University Club of Chicago. The auction was run by Christie's Wine, Inc., a subsidiary of Christie, Manson & Woods International Inc. (now Christie's Inc.), a New York corporation. At

this time, Broadbent was the Senior Director of Christie's' Wine Department. Before the auction,

Christie's distributed a catalog throughout the world, including in New York, describing the wine it was offering for sale. This catalog represented that: "Unless otherwise stated, Bordeaux wines are chateau-bottled." The catalog stated that the wines were described as correctly as could be

ascertained, and did not invite bidders to inspect the wines prior to auction. Only a selection of the wines would be available for viewing in the sale room. Potential bidders like Plaintiff were

able to see and read the statements in the June 23, 1990 auction catalog in New York. The

2033988

- 53 -

June 23,1990 auction was open to bidders located in New York. Plaintiff was among the pool of potential bidders for the bottles described in the June 23, 1990 auction catalog.

150. The June 23, 1990 auction catalog offered the following wine for sale and included the following representations:

.. Lot 89, represented to be a 1952 Chateau Petrus, offered at a price of "$300- 350" and described as:

Chateau Petrus=-Vintage 1952

Pomerol

Belgian-bottled, high-shoulder level, very deep color, slightly worn label

151. Plaintiff relied on the representation as to the producer and vintage of the wine, and, on July 26, 1990, purchased the bottle described above for $400.00.

152. The representations described in paragraphs 149-50 were material to the transaction, were false when made, and were made by Christie's knowingly or with reckless disregard to the truth. The bottle sold to Plaintiff and labeled as a bottle of 1952 Chateau Petrus is, in fact, counterfeit.

4. Christie's' September 24,1988 Auction.

153. Christie's held an auction on September 24, 1988, at the University Club of Chicago titled "Finest and Rarest Wines, The Onondaga Collection." The auction was run by Christie's Wine, Inc., a subsidiary of Christie, Manson & Woods International Inc. (now Christie's Inc.), aNew York corporation. At this time, Broadbent was the Senior Director of Christie's' Wine Department. Before the auction, Christie's distributed a catalog throughout the world, including in New York, describing the wine it was offering for sale. This catalog advised that: "All the notes and opinions expressed in the catalog are Michael Broadbent's, with quotations from The Great Vintage Wine Book (Alfred Knopf, New York)." It also represented that: "Unless otherwise stated, Bordeaux wines are chateau-bottled." The catalog stated that the

2033988

- 54 -

wines were described as correctly as could be ascertained, and did not invite bidders to inspect the wines prior to auction. Only a selection of the wines would be available for viewing in the sale room. Potential bidders like Plaintiff were able to see and read the statements in the September 24,1988 auction catalog in New York. The September 24, 1988 auction was open to bidders located in New York. Plaintiff was among the pool of potential bidders for the bottles described in the September 24, 1988 auction catalog.

154. The September 24, 1988 auction catalog offered the following wine for sale and included the following representations:

1& Lot 309, represented to be a 1869 Chateau Lafite, offered at a price of "$1200+" and described as:

Chateau Lafite-Vintage 1869

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

Recorked by Whitwham & Co., with top-shoulder level and deep color to rim; remnant of original label partially legible, in mold-blown bottle

As the historic purchase of Chateau Lafite by the Rothschild family had been accomplished only weeks prior to the vintaging in 1868, the grapes harvested in 1869 were the first to have been entirely fostered under the new regime. A sometimes overlooked vintage, 1869 is noted by Michael Broadbent as "one of those rare years that combined in superabundance and high quality. For some unknown reason, 1869 and 1870 have never been twinned like, for example, the 187411875, 189911900, 192811929. Tasted for the first time exactly one century after the grapes were picked. Rich, languorous and velvety. More recently, delicate yet assertive."

• Lot 372, represented to be a 1887 Chateau Latour, offered at a price of "$400+" and described as:

2033988

- 55 -

2033988

Chateau Latour-Vintage 1887

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

Excellent neck levels and deep color; new chateau capsules and labels with vintage overprinted

"The best vintage between 1878 and 1893. Half-average crop of sound wines. The Latour has fine deep colour, fairly intense; fine, sound, cedary bouquet, sweet entry, fullish body, very complete, exceptional balance, perfect tannin and acidity when tasted in 1983." JMB.

• Lot 374, represented to be an 1888 Chateau Latour, offered at a price of "$450+" and described as:

Chateau Latour-Vintage 1888

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

Excellent maturing color and neck levels; new chateau capsules and labels with vintage overprinted

"Very pale for Latour, but healthy glow; very fragrant bouquet which developed marked perfume; slightly sweet, light yet holding well. Little tannin but a channing, light, lovely drink." Last tasted March 1983. JMB.

• Lot 376, represented to be an 1889 Chateau Latour, offered at a price of "$350+" and described as:

Chateau Latour-Vintage 1889

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

- 56 -

2033988

Excellent maturing color and new chateau capsules and labels, with vintage overprinted; ...

"Late vintage in good weather. More colour and body than the 1888s." JMB.

o Lot 378, represented to be an 1890 Chateau Latour, offered at a price of "$350+" and described as:

Chateau Latour-+Vintage 1890

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

Excellent deep color, and top-shoulder levels, plain capsules, new chateau labels with vintage overprinted

"Vintage: warm summer, lovely September, average size crop. Tasting note: medium colour; sweet gamey nose and flavour." JMB 1977

.. Lot 380, represented to be two bottles of 1891 Chateau Latour, offered at a price of "$500+" per bottle and described as

Chateau Latour-Vintage 1891

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

Neck levels, deep color, new chateau capsules and labels with vintage overprinted

.. Lot 381, represented to be an 1893 Chateau Latour, offered at a price of "$500+" and described as:

Chateau Latour+-Vintage 1893

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

- 57 -

2033988

The first two bottles have new chateau capsules and labels ... all bottles with top-shoulder or neck levels and very deep color

"The earliest vintage on record, picking in great heat in mid-August. Last tasted in 1981, Latour '93, though palish had very pink cheeks, a light, delicate-for-Latour bouquet, very light and very fragrant on the palate. II JMB

• Lot 384, represented to be an 1894 Chateau Latour, offered at a price of "$250+" and described as:

Chateau Latour-Vintage 1894

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

Excellent deep color and neck level; new chateau capsule and label, with

vintage overprinted

"Small crop. Rare. Not tasted." JMB

• Lot 386, represented to be an 1896 Chateau Latour, offered at a price of "$850+" and described as:

Chateau Latour-Vintage 1896

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

All are with excellent very deep color Lots 386 and 387 have new chateau

capsules and labels. Lot 386 has a neck level

"1896 produced an abundant crop of fine delicate wines. Latour, tasted in 1971 and 1981, lightish with dry finish." JMB

• Lot 387A, represented to be an 1898 Chateau Latour, offered at a price of "$450+" and described as:

- 58 -

2033988

Chateau Latour-Vintage 1898

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

Excellent deep color and neck levels; recorked by Whitwham IS in October 1986, with new chateau labels with vintage overprinted

GI Lot 394, represented to be a 1901 Chateau Latour, offered at a price of "$300-500" and described as:

Chateau Latour-Vintage 1901

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

Excellent color and neck levels; new chateau capsules and labels, soiled, with vintage overprinted

"1901 is extremely rare. Not tasted." JMB

• Lot 396, represented to be a 1904 Chateau Latour, offered at a price of "$250-350" and described as:

Chateau Latour-Vintage 1904

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

Neck level, very deep color, new chateau capsule and label with vintage overprinted

"After three fairly dreary vintages, a return to good times, good conditions: summer with plenty of sun and enough rain to ripen and swell the grapes. An abundant crop gathered in excellent vintage conditions 19 September. Latour reputed to be good." JMB

- 59 -

2033988

GIl Lot 400, represented to be a 1909 Chateau Latour, offered at a price of "$150-250" and described as:

Chateau Latour-Vintage 1909

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

Neck levels, deep color, new chateau capsules and labels, with vintage overprinted

"Very good rich colour; mellow, low-keyed; delicate; dry, lightish but positive flavour. Quite sturdy. Bottle from Latour at Latour tasting June 1981." JMB

.. Lot 185, represented to be a 1896 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild, offered at a price of"$1000+" and described as:

Chateau Mouton-Rothschild-e-Vintage 1896

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

Recorked and relabeled at the chateau, with neck level and deep color to rim; chateau capsule and excellent Baron de Miollis label with only slight soil

Baron de Miollis, whose name appears on this label and many successive ones, served as director of Mouton for a period of time after the death of Baron James Rothschild in 1881 and before the transfer of power to Baron Philippe. As noted in The Great Vintage Wine Book, the vintage was characterized by "Favourable weather, good flowering. August to start of vintage changeable, but cleared for the picking on 20 September. Abundant crop, good wines, fine, delicate, distinguished."

.. Lot 189, represented to be a 1900 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild, offered at a price of "$800+" and described as:

- 60 -

2033988

Chateau Mouton-Rothschild-Vintage 1900

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

New chateau corks, capsules and Baron de Miollis labels which are stained and soiled; excellent neck levels and deep color

"Great vintage. Mouton tasted in 1983 and 1986. Both still fairly deep; in each case the bouquet took 15-20 minutes to develop, then opened right up, holding for well over an hour, fabulous, rich, sweet, hot and lively on palate." JMB

• Lot 192, represented to be a 1905 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild, offered at a price of "$700-900" for both bottles and described as:

Chateau Mouton-Rothschild-Vintage 1905

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

New chateau capsules and Baron de Miollis labels; neck levels and deep color

"Last tasted in 1986 from a mid-shoulder bottle: fabulous colour, showing age at first but developed richly in the glass. Dry, lean on palate." JMB

• Lot 198, represented to be a 1911 Chateau Mouton Rothschild, offered at a price of "$450-550" and described as:

Chateau Mouton-Rothschild-Vintage 1911

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

New chateau capsules and soiled Baron de Miollis labels; neck levels, one bottle with mature and paling color, one slightly deeper

- 61 -

"Last tasted in 1983: palish, fully mature, shade of orange; light, high-toned, flavoury, refreshing piquant taste." JMB

155. Plaintiff relied on the respective representations as to the producer and vintage of each of these wines, and, on October 24, 1988, purchased the bottles described above for the following prices:

• The 1869 Chateau Lafite for $1,320.00. CD The 1887 Chateau Latour for $715.00.

• The 1888 Chateau Latour for $660.00.

• The 1889 Chateau Latour for $528.00.

• The 1890 Chateau Latour for $770.00.

• The two bottles of 1891 Chateau Latour for $357.50 each, $715.00 total.

• The 1893 Chateau Latour for $1,210.00.

• The 1894 Chateau Latour for $605.00.

• The 1896 Chateau Latour for $770.00.

• The 1898 Chateau Latour for $418.00.

• The 1901 Chateau Latour for $385.00.

• The 1904 Chateau Latour for $462.00.

• The 1909 Chateau Latour for $330.00.

• The 1896 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild for $1,320.00.

• The 1900 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild for $1,870.00.

• The 1905 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild for $467.50.

• The 1911 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild for $264.00.

156. The representations described in paragraphs 153-54 were material to the transaction, were false when made, and were made by Christie's knowingly or with reckless disregard to the truth. The bottles sold to Plaintiff as described above are, in fact, counterfeit or highly questionable as to authenticity.

2033988

- 62-

5. Christie's' June 11, 1988 Auction.

157. Christie's held an auction of Fine and Rare Wines on June 11, 1988, at the University Club of Chicago. The auction was run by Christie's Wine, Inc., a subsidiary of Christie, Manson & Woods International Inc. (now Christie's Inc.), a New York corporation. At this time, Broadbent was the Senior Director of Christie's' Wine Department. Before the auction, Christie's distributed a catalog throughout the world, including in New York, describing the wine it was offering for sale. This catalog advised that: "All the notes and opinions expressed in the catalog are Michael Broadbent's, with quotations from The Great Vintage Wine Book (Alfred Knopf, New York)." It also represented that: "Unless otherwise stated, Bordeaux wines are chateau-bottled." The catalog stated that the wines were described as correctly as could be ascertained, and did not invite bidders to inspect the wines prior to auction. Only a selection of the wines would be available for viewing in the sale room. Potential bidders like Plaintiff were able to see and read the statements in the June 11, 1988 auction catalog in New York. The June 11, 1988 auction was open to bidders located in N ew York. Plaintiff was among the pool of potential bidders for the bottles described in the June 11, 1988 auction catalog.

158. The June 11, 1988 auction catalog offered the following wine for sale and included the following representations:

• Lot 600, represented to be a 1952 Chateau Petrus, offered at a price of "$600-700" and described as:

Chateau Petrus=-Vintage 1952

Pomerol

One label torn, one facsimile label

" ... soft, fine textured, and unobtrusively powerful." JMB

2033988

- 63 -

• Lot 437, represented to be an 1870 Chateau Latour, offered at a price of "$2,000+" and described as:

Chateau Latour-Vintage 1870

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

Excellent top-shoulder level, deep garnet color, strip label only

This bottle was originally offered with other pre-phylloxera bottles in the February 27, 1969 Christie's London auction, catalogued as The Remains of a Fine Country House Cellar, The Property of Mrs. H.M Chastel de Boinville, wines removed from the cellars of Walkern Hall, Hertfordshire. All bottles originally bore wax seals with the name of the wine, vintage, and merchant, Walter Borill, London. Only remnants of the capsule remain on this bottle. This is a fine opportunity to acquire a rare example of a vintage, described by Michael Broadbent as "vying with the 1864 as the greatest pre-phylloxera vintage, and, possibly of all time."

159. Plaintiff relied on the representations as to the producers and vintages of the wines, and, on July 20, 1988, purchased the two bottles described above for the following prices:

• The 1952 Chateau Petrus for $286.00.

• The 1870 Chateau Latour for $1,320.00.

160. The representations described in paragraphs 157-58 were material to the transaction, were false when made, and were made by Christie's knowingly or with reckless disregard to the truth. The bottles sold to Plaintiff as described above are, in fact, counterfeit or are highly questionable as to authenticity.

2033988

- 64-

6. Christie's' May 7,1988 Auction.

161. Christie's held an auction of Fine and Rare Wines on May 7, 1988, at the Hotel Richemond, Geneva, Switzerland. The auction was run by Christie's (International) S.A., which, Plaintiff asserts based on information and belief, was at this time a subsidiary of Christie, Manson & Woods International Inc. (now Christie's Inc.), a New York corporation. At this time, Broadbent was the Senior Director of Christie's' Wine Department. Before the auction, Christie's distributed a catalog throughout the world, including in New York, describing the wine it was offering for sale. The catalog did not invite bidders to inspect the wines prior to auction. The only invitation was to a "Limited pre-sale tasting at the Hotel Richemond from 10.30 a.m. to 12 noon on the day of the Sale." Potential bidders like Plaintiff were able to see and read the statements in the May 7,1988 auction catalog in New York. The May 7, 1988 auction was open to bidders located in New York. Plaintiff was among the pool of potential bidders for the bottles described in the May 7, 1988 auction catalog.

162. The May 7, 1988 auction catalog offered the following bottles of wine for sale and included the following representations:

• Lot 461, represented to be a 1905 Chateau Lafite, offered at a price of "FR. 400+" and described as:

Chateau Lafite-Vintage 1905

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe. Chateau-bottled

• Lots 463 and 463A, represented to be bottles of 1906 Chateau Lafite, offered at a price of "FR. 350+" and described as:

Chateau Lafite-Vintage 1906

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe. Chateau-bottled

2033988

- 65 -

163. Plaintiff relied on the representations as to the producers and vintages of the wines, and, on May 18, 1988, purchased the bottles described above for the following prices:

• The 1905 Chateau Lafite for $391.71.

• The two bottles of 1906 Chateau Lafite for $313.37 and $330.00.

164. The representations described in paragraphs 161-62 were material to the transaction, were false when made, and were made by Christie's knowingly or with reckless disregard to the truth. The bottles sold to Plaintiff as described above are, in fact, counterfeit or are highly questionable as to authenticity.

7. Christie's' April 9, 1988 Auction.

165. Christie's held an auction of Fine and Rare Wines on April 9, 1988, at the University Club of Chicago. The auction was run by Christie's Wine, Inc., a subsidiary of Christie, Manson & Woods International Inc. (now Christie's Inc.), a New York corporation. At this time, Broadbent was the Senior Director of Christie's' Wine Department. Before the auction, Christie's distributed a catalog throughout the world, including in New York, describing the wine it was offering for sale. This catalog advised that: "All the notes and opinions expressed in the catalog are Michael Broadbent's, with quotations from The Great Vintage Wine Book (Alfred Knopf, New York)." It also represented that: "Unless otherwise stated, Bordeaux wines are chateau-bottled." The catalog stated that the wines were described as correctly as could be ascertained, and did not invite bidders to inspect the wines prior to auction. Only a selection of the wines would be available for viewing in the sale room. Potential bidders like Plaintiff were able to see and read the statements in the April 9, 1988 auction catalog in New York. The April 9, 1988 auction was open to bidders located in New York. Plaintiff was among the pool of potential bidders for the bottles described in the April 9, 1988 auction catalog.

166. The April 9, 1988 auction catalog offered the following bottle of wine for sale and included the following representations:

2033988

- 66-

Ell Lot 362, represented to be an 1864 Chateau Lafite, offered at a price of "$1,500 +" and described as:

Chateau Lafitte (sic)-Vintage 1864

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

Bordeaux-bottled by Cruse & Fils Freres

Remarkable appearance, with high- to top-shoulder level and very deep color with no sign of maturation; label with minor soil and nicks but in generally excellent condition, wax capsule embossed "Lafitte 1864 Cruse"

The Cruse firm was a regular bottler of major properties during this period, as chateau-bottlings were not commonplace at that time. This is a rare opportunity to obtain an example of this monumental pre-phylloxera vintage. "A truly grande annee. Wines of pronounced bouquet, sap, finesse, softness and elegance." JMB

167. Plaintiff relied on the representation as to the producer and vintage of the wine, and, on May 12, 1988, purchased the bottle described above for $2,420.00.

168. The representations described in paragraphs 165-66 were material to the transaction, were false when made, and were made by Christie's knowingly or with reckless disregard to the truth. The bottle sold to Plaintiff as described above is, in fact, counterfeit.

8. Christie's' February 6,1988 Auction.

169. Christie's held an auction of Fine and Rare Wines on February 6, 1988, at the University Club of Chicago. The auction was run by Christie's Wine, Inc., a subsidiary of Christie, Manson & Woods International Inc. (now Christie's Inc.), a New York corporation. At this time, Broadbent was the Senior Director of Christie's' Wine Department. Before the auction, Christie's distributed a catalog throughout the world, including in New York, describing the wine

2033988

- 67 -

it was offering for sale. This catalog advised that: "All the notes and opinions expressed in the catalog are Michael Broadbent's, with quotations from The Great Vintage Wine Book (Alfred Knopf, New York)." It also represented that: "Unless otherwise stated, Bordeaux wines are chateau-bottled." The catalog stated that the wines were described as correctly as could be ascertained, and did not invite bidders to inspect the wines prior to auction. Only a selection of the wines would be available for viewing in the sale room. Potential bidders like Plaintiff were able to see and read the statements in the February 6, 1988 auction catalog in New York. The February 6, 1988 auction was open to bidders located in New York. Plaintiff was among the pool of potential bidders for the bottles described in the February 6, 1988 auction catalog.

170. The February 6, 1988 auction catalog offered the following wine for sale and included the following representations:

• Lot 456, represented to be a 1912 Chateau Latour, offered at a price of

"$150-250" and described as:

Chateau Latour-Vintage 1912

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

Excellent deep color and high-shoulder level; label largely disintegrated but vintage clearly visible on cork brand; plain capsule

171. Plaintiff relied on the representation as to the producer and vintage of the wine, and, on March 9, 1988, purchased the bottle described above for $198.00.

172. The representations described in paragraphs 169-70 were material to the transaction, were false when made, and were made by Christie's knowingly or with reckless disregard to the truth. The bottle sold to Plaintiff and labeled as a bottle of 1912 Chateau Latour is, in fact, counterfeit.

2033988

- 68 -

9. Christie's' October 10,1987 Auction.

173. Christie's held an auction on October 10, 1987, at the University Club of Chicago titled "The Bresciani Collection: Finest and Rarest Wines and Collectors' Pieces." The auction was run by Christie's Wine, Inc., a subsidiary of Christie, Manson & Woods International Inc. (now Christie's Inc.), a New York corporation. At this time, Broadbent was the Senior Director of Christie's' Wine Department. Before the auction, Christie's distributed a catalog throughout the world, including in New York, describing the wine it was offering for sale, and representing that Michael Broadbent was to be the auctioneer. This catalog advised that: "All the notes and opinions expressed in the catalog are Michael Broadbent's, with quotations from The Great Vintage Wine Book (Alfred Knopf, New York)." It also represented that: "Unless otherwise stated, Bordeaux wines are chateau-bottled." The catalog stated that the wines were described as correctly as could be ascertained, and did not invite bidders to inspect the wines prior to auction. Only a selection of the wines would be available for viewing in the sale room. Potential bidders like Plaintiff were able to see and read the statements in the October 10, 1987 auction catalog in New York. The October 10,1987 auction was open to bidders located in New York. Plaintiff was among the pool of potential bidders for the bottles described in the October 10, 1987 auction catalog.

174. The October 10, 1987 auction catalog offered the following wine for sale and included the following representations:

• Lot 99, represented to be a 1970 Chateau Lafite, offered at a price of "$1,100+" and described as:

Chateau Lafite-Vintage 1970

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

Some '70s are still clumsy and shy. Lafite is still delicious now. Notable for its length and fragrant aftertaste. I.M.B.

2033988

- 69 -

2033988

2 double-magnums, in original case

e Lot 152, represented to be a 1893 Chateau Margaux, offered at a price of "$400-600" and described as:

Chateau Margaux-Vintage 1893

Margaux, 1 er cru classe

Re-corked by Whitwham & Co. on February 15, 1980, and with top-shoulder levels and deep color maturing at rim, fragments of original labels intact

A bottle of 1893 tasted by Michael Broadbent was glowingly described as having 'very fine deep, rich, colour: sweet (for a red wine), soft, creamy, incredibly rich and full-bodied. A fabulously complete wine. Best of the

bottles tasted May 1987.'

1 bottle, chipped capsule

• Lot 199, represented to be a 1929 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild, offered at a price of "$7,000+" and described as

Chateau Mouton-Rothschild-Vintage 1929

Pauillac, 1 er cru classe

The jeroboam [i.e., the bottle in question] has an excellent very high-shoulder level, garnet color, and pristine label ....

A famed, classic, opulent Mouton. J.M.B.

1 jeroboam, in original case

- 70 -

175. Plaintiff relied on the respective representations as to the producer and vintage of each of these wines, and, on November 13, 1987, purchased the bottles described above for the following prices:

III The 1970 Chateau Lafite for $687.50.

III The 1893 Chateau Margaux for $506.00.

III The 1929 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild for $8,800.00.

176. The representations described in paragraphs 173-74 were material to these transactions, were false when made, and were made by Christie's knowingly or with reckless disregard to the truth. The bottles sold to Plaintiff as described above are, in fact, counterfeit or are highly questionable as to authenticity.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (CIVIL RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1964)

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

177. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 176 of this Complaint as though set forth in full herein.

178. Section 1962(c) of Title 18 of the United States Code prohibits any person from conducting an enterprise or participating in the conduct of an enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.

179. As alleged in paragraphs 1 through 176, Christie's, in concert with Broadbent and Rodenstock, has engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, the activities of which affect interstate and foreign commerce. Plaintiff was one of many victims of such racketeering activity as he relied on the misrepresentations of Christie's that the wine he purchased was as represented. Plaintiff would not have purchased the wine if it had been disclosed that the wine was counterfeit. The misrepresentations caused harm to Plaintiff as the counterfeit wine he purchased is worthless.

2033988

- 71 -

180. Rodenstock, Broadbent, and Christie's operated together as an association-in-fact enterprise. Rodenstock's role was, in part, to "discover" rare wine, wine that he, in fact, counterfeited. Broadbent and Christie's extolled the virtues of Roden stock's counterfeit wine, including the Th.J. Wine, at tastings, in catalogs and through auctions, and gave it authenticity and provenance. Broadbent, a top level Christie's employee and world renowned expert in wines, gave Rodenstock legitimacy he would not otherwise have had, and ensured that Rodenstock's counterfeit wine could be sold. The Rodenstock/Broadbent/Christie's Enterprise has continued for decades. Christie's continues to use Broadbent's tasting notes in its catalogs and those tasting notes reference Rodenstock and Rodenstock tastings frequently. Christie's is the only auction house that repeatedly references Rodenstock in its catalogs.

181. In the course of, and in furtherance of, this racketeering conduct, Christie's participated in the RodenstocklBroadbent/Christie's Enterprise and engaged in mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341:

• In an effort to promote its auction of the counterfeit wines and to avoid the subsequent detection of the counterfeit wines it sold, Christie's distributed catalogs and correspondence through the mails describing and authenticating the counterfeit Th.J. Wines "discovered" by Rodenstock. These statements were written by Broadbent. The statements were intended to, and did, cause prospective buyers, including Plaintiff, to bid on and buy the Th.J. Wine for amounts far exceeding the actual value of those counterfeit bottles. As detailed in paragraphs 1 through 176, statements containing false descriptions, and inaccurately describing the vintage and producer of counterfeit wines, were mailed throughout the United States and the world repeatedly between at least 1985 and 2008.

As part of a campaign to provide authenticity for the counterfeit Th.J. Wines, Broadbent, as Christie's' representative, engaged in a letter writing exchange with experts at Monticello in which he sought to persuade these experts that the Th.J.

2033988

- 72 -

Wines were part of Thomas Jefferson's wine collection. Broadbent and Christie's intentionally withheld from prospective buyers of the Th.J. Wine the information learned from the experts at Monticello, including the material fact that the experts did not believe that the Th.J. Wine belonged to Thomas Jefferson.

182. In the course of, and in furtherance of, this racketeering conduct Christie's participated in the RodenstockiBroadbent/Christie's Enterprise and engaged in wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343:

• In 2006, in an effort to conceal the fact that the Th.J. Wine is counterfeit and for the purpose of executing the RodenstockiBroadbent/Christie's Enterprise's scheme to promote the Th.J. Wine as authentic, Rodenstock sent a facsimile to Plaintiff in which he reaffirmed his claim that the Th.J. Wine is authentic and emphasized that Christie's had "established" the authenticity of the Th.J. Wine.

During auctions of the counterfeit Th.J. Wines, Christie's allowed potential buyers to bid on the wines via telephone and provided phone numbers for bidders to use. Following auctions of the counterfeit Th.J. Wines, Christie's allowed buyers to pay for the bottles by wire transfer to Christie's account.

183. Plaintiffs business and property has been injured by reason of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 and he is entitled to treble damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a), this Court should restrain and enjoin further violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962. The pattern of racketeering activity has extended over a substantial period of time and it is continuing, warranting injunctive relief.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (CIVIL CONSPIRACY To DEFRAUD)

(AGAINST CHRISTIE'S INTERNATIONAL PLC AND CHRISTIE, MANSON & WOODS, LTD.) 184. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 176 of this Complaint as though set forth in full herein.

2033988

- 73 -

185. At all relevant times, Christie's International pIc, Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. and Rodenstock knowingly and intentionally agreed to mislead purchasers and collectors of rare wines, a group that includes Plaintiff, by selling wines allegedly once owned by Thomas Jefferson, but that Christie's International plc, Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. and Rodenstock knew to be counterfeit.

186. In furtherance of their conspiracy, Christie's International pIc, Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. and Rodenstock committed the acts described herein, including those described in paragraphs 1 through 176. Also in furtherance of their conspiracy, Christie's International plc, Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. and Rodenstock conspired to evade detection of their wrongdoing and the public embarrassment and liability related to it.

187. In furtherance of their conspiracy, Christie's International plc, Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. and Rodenstock made material misrepresentations to and concealed or suppressed material facts from purchasers and collectors of rare wines, a group that includes Plaintiff. Such misrepresentations and suppressed material facts include those listed in paragraphs 1 through 176.

188. The omissions or representations by Christie's International pIc, Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. and Rodenstock were material and were false and misleading, and Christie's International pIc, Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. and Rodenstock knew they were material and were false and misleading at the time they were made.

189. Christie's International pIc, Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. and Rodenstock misrepresented, concealed, or suppressed these facts with the intent to influence the actions of purchasers and collectors of rare wines, a group that includes Plaintiff, and to induce members of this group to purchase Th.J. Wines sold through Christie's or other channels.

190. Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied on Christie's International plc's, Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. 's, and Rodenstock's misrepresentations in purchasing the counterfeit bottles ofTh.J. Wine described in the Complaint. Moreover, Christie's International plc's and Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd.'s, glowing endorsements of Roden stock and the Th.J. Wines

2033988

- 74 -

gave Plaintiff comfort that the Th.J. Wines were authentic and influenced Plaintiffs decision to purchase such wines.

191. At the time Plaintiff acted, Plaintiff was unaware of the concealed or suppressed facts and would have acted differently if Plaintiff had known the true facts.

192. Christie's International pIc, Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. and Rodenstock acted with a specific intent to harm purchasers and collectors of rare wines, a group that includes Plaintiff, and knowingly and intentionally perpetrated a continuing scheme to sell counterfeit wines, evade detection, and profit from selling counterfeit wines.

193. Plaintiff has been injured by the conspiracy between Christie's International pIc, Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. and Rodenstock and has suffered damages of more than $311,804.40, the precise amount of which is to be determined at trial.

194. By virtue of Christie's International plc's and Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. 's, willful, wanton, and morally culpable conduct, aimed at the public generally, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD)

(AGAINST CHRISTIE'S INTERNATIONAL PLC AND CHRISTIE, MANSON & WOODS, LTD) 195. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 176 of this Complaint as though set forth in full herein.

196. At all relevant times, Christie's International plc and Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. knew that Hardy Rodenstock was acting to defraud Plaintiff, third parties, and purchasers and collectors of rare wines, a group that includes Plaintiff, by selling wines that Christie's International plc, Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. and Rodenstock knew to be counterfeit.

197. Rodenstock did, in fact, defraud Plaintiffby, inter alia, falsely representing to Farr Vintners and others that the four bottles ofTh.J. Wine alleged herein were bottles of wine

2033988

- 75 -

formerly owned by Thomas Jefferson that he found in a bricked-up cellar in Paris, and by suppressing or omitting material facts, as described in paragraphs 1 through 176 herein. Plaintiff relied on Rodenstock's representations and purchased those bottles at prices that far exceeded their actual value, to his detriment and injury.

198. Christie's International plc and Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. substantially assisted Rodenstock to defraud Plaintiff, third parties, and purchasers and collectors of rare wines, a group that includes Plaintiff. For instance, Christie's International plc and Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. knowingly and intentionally made misrepresentations, omissions and suppression of material facts about the Th.J. Wine and Rodenstock to purchasers and collectors ofrare wines, such as Plaintiff, including those described in paragraphs 1 through 176. Christie's International plc and Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. knew that Rodenstock would use their misrepresentations and endorsements to sell his counterfeit Th.J. Wines. Christie's International pIc and Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. further knew that, due to their unique and authoritative position in the wine industry, their endorsement of Rodenstock and of the Th.J. Wines sold at Christie's auctions would give credibility to other Th.J. Wines offered for sale by Rodenstock and that purchasers and collectors of rare wine, such as Plaintiff, would rely on Christie's International pIc's and Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. 's, endorsement of Rodenstock and the Th.J. Wines in deciding whether to purchase such wine.

199. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Christie's International pIc's and Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd.'s, misrepresentations and endorsements of Rodenstock and the Th.J. Wines in deciding to purchase Th.J. Wine. At the time, Plaintiff was unaware of the concealed or suppressed facts and would have acted differently if Plaintiff had known the true facts.

200. As a result of Christie's International pIc's and Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd. 's, substantial and active assistance of Roden stock's fraudulent scheme, Plaintiffhas suffered damages of more than $311,804.40, the precise amount of which is to be determined at trial.

2033988

- 76-

201. By virtue of Christie's International plc's and Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd.'s, willful, wanton, and morally culpable conduct, aimed at the public generally, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(VIOLATION OF SECTION 349 OF THE NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW)

(AGAINST CHRISTIE'S INC.)

202. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 176 of this Complaint as though set forth in full herein.

203. New York General Business Law (flGBLfI) § 349 prohibits any business or person from engaging in deceptive business practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in New York state.

204. As alleged in paragraphs 1 through 176, Christie's Inc. has repeatedly and persistently engaged in material deceptive or material misleading consumer-related business practices, including selling in New York counterfeit wines and wines that are highly questionable as to authenticity, and making material misleading and deceptive statements, descriptions, representations and omissions in its marketing and catalogs for its auction sales in New York of wine, that affected consumers, including purchasers and collectors of rare wines, a group that includes Plaintiff, in violation of GBL § 349. Christie's Inc.'s deceptive or misleading business practices alleged herein are likely to mislead, and have misled, reasonable purchasers and collectors of rare wines causing consumer injury or harm to the public interest, including injury to Plaintiff.

205. GBL § 349(h) provides in relevant part that: fl ... any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of this section may bring an action in his own name to enjoin such unlawful act or practice, [ or] an action to recover his actual damages .... "

206. Christie's Inc. IS deceptive practices and violation of GBL § 349 inflated the price

and value of the counterfeit wines and wines that are highly questionable as to authenticity that it

2033988

- 77 -

sold at its public auctions and has caused Plaintiff to suffer injury and actual damages including, inter alia, paying inflated prices for counterfeit wines and highly questionable wines and not realizing the appreciation in value Plaintiff would have realized had the bottles he purchased from Christie's Inc. been from the producers and of the vintages Christie's Inc. had represented, marketed and described them to be leading up to and when Christie's Inc. sold them at public auction in New York. As a result of Christie's Inc.'s violation of GBL § 349, Plaintiff has suffered damages, the precise amount of which is to be determined at trial.

207. Christie's Inc.'s deceptive practices were consumer-oriented. Because its catalogs were distributed to the public and its auctions were public, potentially large numbers of consumers also were harmed and purchased counterfeit wines and wines that are highly questionable as to authenticity at inflated prices, and have also lost the appreciation and investment that such wines would have had if they had not been counterfeit and highly

questionable, as well as the opportunity to resale such wines. Because of Chi is tie's Inc.'s

misleading material assertions and omissions about the wines it sold in New York, Plaintiff and other consumers participating in Christie's Inc.'s public sales in New York were deceived as to the true value of such wines and suffered harm and damages by paying prices substantially in excess of the true value of the wines being sold, which were either counterfeit or highly questionable as to authenticity and not from the producers and of the vintages Christie's Inc. had assured Plaintiff and other consumers leading up to and at such sales through their marketing and other activities in New York and elsewhere. Christie's Inc.'s deceptive practices have included

extensive marketing schemes that impacted consumers at large in N ew York, not only Plaintiff.

Christie's Inc. 's misleading assurances and deceptive practices in the sale of counterfeit wine and wines that are highly questionable as to authenticity in New York to Plaintiff are not an isolated incident, but a routine practice and pattern that affected many consumer purchasers and collectors of wine in New York, including those similarly situated to Plaintiff. Additionally, Christie's Inc.'s deceptive conduct undermined New York's interest in an honest marketplace in which economic activity is conducted in a fair and competitive manner.

2033988

- 78 -

208. Christie's Inc. willfully and knowingly, or wantonly and recklessly, engaged in the conduct alleged herein, which conduct transcends mere carelessness.

209. Plaintiff is entitled to all applicable damages, including treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees pursuant to New York GBL § 349(h).

WHEREFORE, having set forth his claims, Plaintiff prays for judgment in his favor as follows:

a. Damages for all injuries suffered as a result of Christie's International

pIc's, Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd.'s, and Christie's Inc.'s unlawful conduct;

b. Exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

c. Treble damages as appropriate under 18 U.S.c. § 1964(c) and New York

GBL § 349(h);

d. Attorneys' fees as appropriate under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) and New York

GBL § 349(h);

e. An injunction restraining Christie's International plc's, Christie, Manson &

Woods, Ltd.'s, and Christie's Inc. from selling any bottle of wine of any vintage before 1962 without first obtaining the opinion of an independent qualified expert that such bottle does not bear indicia of being counterfeit;

f. Pre-judgment interest in an amount to be determined at trial; and

g. Such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable in this action.

2033988

- 79-

Dated: New York, New York

March 30, 2010

2033988

Respectfully submitted,

Elkan Abramowitz Edward M. Spiro

MORVILLO, ABRAMOWITZ, GRAND, IASON, ANELLO & BOHRER, P.C.

565 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10017 (212) 856-9600

-and-

Layn R. Phillips (to be admitted pro hac vice) Bruce A. Wessel (to be admitted pro hac vice) Marshall A. Camp

IRELL & MANELLA LLP

840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400 Newport Beach, California 92660-6324 (949) 760-0991

Attorneys for Plaintiff WILLIA~M 1. KOCH

- 80 -

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful