Titanic Court Case...

jeff k

Bronze Member
Mar 4, 2006
1,264
18
Florida
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
By Tim McGlone
The Virginian-Pilot
© November 29, 2008

NORFOLK

After 15 years of legal wrangling in the federal courts, a judge is getting set to decide the fate of thousands of artifacts plucked off the ocean floor around the Titanic wreck site.

U.S. District Judge Rebecca B. Smith has indicated that she's leaning toward giving title of the artifacts to the company that has cared for them and displayed them in exhibitions around the world. For those 15 years, the federal court has held tight reins over what can be done with the property.

But before making a final ruling, Smith has said, the company must convince her that the historical pieces will not be sold or destroyed. To appease her, the company has been hammering out covenants and restrictions aimed at preserving the pieces.

But the company, Premier Exhibitions Inc., along with its subsidiary, RMS Titanic Inc., has come under increasing fire this year as its stock price has plummeted while expenses have soared.

Questions are being raised about the health and future of the company, which has been salvaging artifacts from the wreck site since 1987. The federal government, which must sign off on the covenants, has raised concerns about what would happen if Premier went bankrupt.

Arnie Geller, president and CEO of Premier and RMS Titanic, is facing an uprising by stockholders because of sagging profits and a near-record-low stock price. Ironically, Geller helped orchestrate a company coup about 10 years ago for the same reasons.

Chicago-based Sellers Capital LLC, a hedge fund run by venture capitalist Mark Sellers, is Premier's majority shareholder. Sellers issued a news release earlier this month calling for Geller's resignation; new members of the board of directors; and vast changes in company operations.

His chief complaints include what he called Geller's excessive salary and compensation - this year worth $1.26 million - at a time when the company's stock has fallen 55 percent, to around 60 cents a share.

Geller has refused to step down and has balked at the idea suggested by Sellers to "monetize" the Titanic assets. In other words, Sellers wants to sell them.

The 5,500 artifacts under Premier's control are estimated to be worth more than $100 million. But Smith, the Norfolk federal judge, has made it clear that the artifacts can never be sold on the free market. The company has tried to sell them to museums, but none has stepped forward with an appropriate price.

In an interim order that Smith filed earlier this year, she wrote that her final order with the covenants "would ensure that the RMS Titanic and its artifacts are preserved as an international treasure for posterity."

Company officials said they were disturbed by Sellers' statements, according to Robert McFarland, a Virginia Beach attorney who represents the Atlanta-based Premier/RMS Titanic.

"These are not our artifacts to sell," McFarland said earlier this week.

In a Nov. 18 court filing, the company tried to assure Judge Smith that Sellers was out of line.

"Mr. Sellers' statements about monetizing the company's Titanic assets were unauthorized and improper," the company wrote to the judge. The company sent Sellers a letter stating that the board "disapproved and disavowed" of his "unauthorized comments."

Sellers, in a news release earlier this month, backed away from those statements but said he still plans to go forward with his proxy fight.

Some investors in RMS have long sought to reap large profits from the artifacts of arguably one of the most famous ships in the world. The company has relied on exhibitions as its chief source of income, but upkeep of the artifacts grows each year. Salvage trips to the North Atlantic cost millions as well.

The company recently signed a 10-year contract to exhibit some of the artifacts at the Luxor hotel and casino in Las Vegas. It also has exhibits in five cities.

The Titanic struck an iceberg and sank on its maiden voyage in April 1912, killing more than 1,500 passengers and crew. Its wreckage is 400 miles southeast of Newfoundland, scattered at a depth of about 2-1/2 miles.

About 700 people survived, but only one is known to still be alive. Millvina Dean, who was 9 weeks old when she was rescued from the sinking ship, lives in England. She recently sold off some of her personal Titanic mementos to help pay for her care in a nursing home.
 

This should be a perfect example of what will happen with the UNESCO "you can salvage it but not sell it" malarky....
 

U.S. District Judge Rebecca B. Smith has indicated that she's leaning toward giving title of the artifacts to the company that has cared for them and displayed them in exhibitions around the world.

I'm still trying to figure out how a U.S. judge has any jurisdiction over what is found in international waters, much less a British vessel in int'l waters. Yes, this goes for the Odyssey case, too. I cheer for postive rulings in favor of reputable salvors, but U.S. jurisdiction beyond our borders confuses me. Anyone got an answer for that one?
 

Dept. of State
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
June 18, 2004


U.S. Signs Agreement to Protect RMS Titanic Wreck Site
Today the United States signed an international agreement that will lead to increased protection of the RMS Titanic wreck site. The four nations most closely associated with the Titanic -- Canada, France, the United Kingdom and the U.S. -- negotiated the agreement, beginning in 1997. Concerted action by these countries would effectively foreclose financing for and the technical ability to conduct unregulated salvage and other potentially harmful activities.

Though it rests 12,000 feet deep, the Titanic continues to capture the attention of people around the globe. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) recently sponsored a scientific expedition to the wreck that included explorer Robert D. Ballard, the man who discovered it in 1985. He attributed newfound damage to the wreck to submarines landing on the deck for salvage operations, filming, and tourism.

Under the agreement, the Titanic is designated as an international maritime memorial, recognizing the men, women and children who perished and whose remains should be given appropriate respect. Parties will also protect the scientific, cultural and historical significance of the wreck site by regulating, within their jurisdiction, dives to the Titanic shipwreck, including the hull, cargo and other artifacts at the wreck site.

The U.K. signed the agreement in November 2003 and, at the same time, enacted implementing legislation. The Agreement enters into force when two or more nations have ratified or accepted it; once in force, it applies to each subsequent country upon ratification, acceptance, or accession. Once implementing legislation is signed into U.S. law, the U.S. can deposit its acceptance and the Agreement will become effective for the U.S.

As directed by the Titanic Maritime Memorial Act, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, the Department of State will forward the signed agreement and recommended implementing legislation to Congress.

The agreement does not apply to the existing collection of 6,000 Titanic artifacts that have been salvaged pursuant to admiralty court orders, but it is consistent with those orders and current scientific principles of historic and cultural resource conservation.
 

That last sentence you wrote - question - what does that mean for the "certified" artifacts already sold from the collection - I sure ain't gonna give 'em back! There were many that were sold, already.

I just cannot understand the concept that someone should do all that work, and spend all that time, and the "powers that be" would rather see them rot in the ocean than see anyone spread the history. Nothing is more exciting than holding a piece of history in your hand (IMO)

B
 

Darren in NC said:
U.S. District Judge Rebecca B. Smith has indicated that she's leaning toward giving title of the artifacts to the company that has cared for them and displayed them in exhibitions around the world.

I'm still trying to figure out how a U.S. judge has any jurisdiction over what is found in international waters, much less a British vessel in int'l waters. Yes, this goes for the Odyssey case, too. I cheer for postive rulings in favor of reputable salvors, but U.S. jurisdiction beyond our borders confuses me. Anyone got an answer for that one?


I guess because it's a US company(?)

This a quote from their website.

The Company was granted salvor-in-possession rights to the wreck of the Titanic by a United States Federal Court order in 1994. That order was reconfirmed in 1996. This award includes the exclusive rights to recover artifacts from the wreck site. During seven research and recovery expeditions conducted in 1987, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2004, RMS Titanic, Inc. has recovered 5,500 artifacts, ranging from a massive 17-ton portion of the hull (98/0001.A1) to a delicate child's marble (93/0054.1/2) measuring only one-half inch in diameter. RMS Titanic, Inc. maintains a comprehensive digital archive of these recovered and conserved artifacts as well as photographic data from the site.

As the only entity that has recovered and conserved objects from the Titanic, RMS Titanic, Inc. is in the unique position to present an unprecedented visible and tangible experience of the Ship from her conception and her tragic loss to the scientific magic of her discovery.


RMS Titanic, Inc., headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia is a wholly owned subsidiary of Premier Exhibitions, Inc. listed on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol PRXI.



I still don't completely understand how a US judge can give exclusive rights for a non-US ship in international waters, but what do I know?


Jay
 

mrs.oroblanco said:
I just cannot understand the concept that someone should do all that work, and spend all that time, and the "powers that be" would rather see them rot in the ocean than see anyone spread the history. Nothing is more exciting than holding a piece of history in your hand (IMO)

B

I concur! They had the exhibit come through Newport News at the Mariner's Museum some years back. We went to see it. What a wonderful display of history!
 

Because the United States Government is a party to several international Treaties and Conventions pertaining to International maritime law, and the US federal Court system has that obligation, as do the court systems of other Governments that are also a party to these treaties and conventions.
Salvage companies traditionally will file for arrest of shipwrecks within the country that they are incorporated in. Had RMS Titanic Inc. been a British company, they would most likely have filed there claim in a British Federal Court. In this case, as is the case with Odyssey Marine, both companies have filed in the US primarily because it is easier and less expensive to litigate these issues at home and spare the expense of traveling to another country to litigate.
Basically, International Maritime Law is the same regardless of the country that a company decides to litigate it in.


Some good reference material... http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/interconv.html#AL
 

Ron and Ann

That museum is great, isn't it?

Someone took me there (who lives in Va. Beach) and Edgar Cayce's. It was a great week!!!

B
 

mrs.oroblanco said:
Ron and Ann

That museum is great, isn't it?

Someone took me there (who lives in Va. Beach) and Edgar Cayce's. It was a great week!!!

B

Yes it is! They always have great displays. We love going to museums and learning history, even my kids! LOL...And you know, I have been in VB since '78 and not once been to Edgar Cayce's musuem! Go Figure! LOL... guess I'll have to finally put it on the list for this coming year of THINGS TO SEE!
 

Ron and Ann,

Edgar Cayce's (when we went, I have heard it has been re-done since then, so I don't know if you still can), had many of his originals writings (ramblings and notes, so to speak) that you could actually pick up and read - not behind pieces of glass, original manuscripts - again, you could pick them up, sit on one of the chairs, and read. (not too many places let you do that).

If and when you go, you will have to let me know (please!), if they still have it the same.

As I have said many times, I love to be able to "touch" a piece of history.

We, too, love history. We have always tried to find the museums wherever we have traveled. Many times, you find things that they just don't write in the history books.

B
 

mrs.oroblanco said:
Ron and Ann,

Edgar Cayce's (when we went, I have heard it has been re-done since then, so I don't know if you still can), had many of his originals writings (ramblings and notes, so to speak) that you could actually pick up and read - not behind pieces of glass, original manuscripts - again, you could pick them up, sit on one of the chairs, and read. (not too many places let you do that).

If and when you go, you will have to let me know (please!), if they still have it the same.

As I have said many times, I love to be able to "touch" a piece of history.

We, too, love history. We have always tried to find the museums wherever we have traveled. Many times, you find things that they just don't write in the history books.

B

I will most certainly let you know when I go. Funny how I've been here all these years and never went!

History, isn't it fascinating? Wondering who held that item, who walked the path you are walking now, who sat in that chair...so many questions! That is why I love metal detecting and genealogy...they go well together!

We do that too...when traveling. When we were headed to Texas, we stopped in Oklahoma and visited some of the Indian Museums (being my dau is of Native American decent)...I'm fascinated with Native American history!

Has anyone else seen the Traveling Titantic Display?

Annmarie
 

Even though they cannot sell them they must do pretty well off the Titanic Exhibits which draw big crowds of paying customers?
 

The Titanic exhibit was featured at the Florida International Museum in St. Petersburg 4 years ago and it broke the record for attendance. More people came to see it than the King Tut exhibit.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top