Broadbent to sue over Billionaire's Vinegar

[Roy Hersh]

I'm not surprised by this news, but for those that have read the book ... it will give you something to think about.

http://www.decanter.com/news/286946.html

[Eric Menchen]

I read the book and while it certainly doesn't paint Michael in a great light, I felt it made him seem like a victim as well. He worked with Rodenstock to sell the bottles, and tried to stand behind them, but I didn't get the impression he was a co-conspirator fully aware of the extend of the fraud. I think he should have just let it go. Now he's going to draw more attention to this, and given all that has come out since, it will only make things look worse.

[Moses Botbol]

I read the book and while it certainly doesn't paint Michael in a great light, I felt it made him seem like a victim as well. He worked with Rodenstock to sell the bottles, and tried to stand behind them, but I didn't get the impression he was a co-conspirator fully aware of the extend of the fraud. I think he should have just let it go. Now he's going to draw more attention to this, and given all that has come out since, it will only make things look worse.

Have to agree. His name and reputation are intact. Why open a can of worms to a larger audience? If someone thought he was well respected and above reproach, may think different after the law suit. Why sue now? The book has been out for some time.

[Roy Hersh]

You both make salient points, however, if it was my name involved, I would do everything in my power to prove my innocence and protect my reputation and good name. Mr. Broadbent has quite a legacy to protect.

[Bartholomew Broadbent]

In answer to the question "why sue now?": It is nothing new. It is true that the news was broken by a UK newspaper, the Daily Mail, on July 23rd but the case has actually been in legal hands for over a year. The lawyers were appointed after the book was first sold in the UK, where it is accused of being in breach of libel and defamation of character laws. It was a private case which was not expected to be made public until it came to court next year.

Yes, he could have ignored the book, except for the fact that Will Smith has purchased the rights to make a movie about it and my father wouldn't want the same inaccuracies to be repeated, immortalized in film, at least not if they portray it as non-fiction and use real names. Will Smith will have to make sure that his facts and insinuations are based on researched facts, not on what the book has portrayed, and that the film's research is up to date and doesn't break the same UK laws.

As to Eric Menchen's comment "given all that has come out since, it will only make things look worse", this may appear true to Eric but much has not yet been made public. The trump card has yet to be played. Alas, I am not allowed to talk about it. Suffice to say that the twist would make it an even better movie!

Bartholomew Broadbent

[Moses Botbol]

I hope your efforts are successful in court and don't make things worse like when Max Mosley went to court. He did "win", but lost in the long run. Either outcome, I respect Michael Broadbent and adore Broadbent products like their Madeira and Port.

[Andy Velebil]

I thought it an interesting book which brought up some interesting theories. However it did paint some people in a negative light which I thought to be unfair, Broadbent was one of them. As an outsider who's a police investigator looking in sometime later, Rodenstock's (or whatever his real name is) activities and credibility sure raises some serious red flags. But it's far easier to be an outsider monday morning quarterbacking events that transpired many years earlier and before the age of instant computer access, email, and the internet.

From what I've read and heard so far, and in my opionion and experience, Rodenstock is a rare master con-man. He was able to con many seriously wealthy wine collectors and reviewers, people not easily con'd. I don't think these collectors and reviewers did anything wrong, and have never heard of any issues with their integrity except for whats in this book. Something I personally felt the author embellished to make the book more interesting. I'll stop there as I have some strong personal feelings about many "investigative writers" of books and news stories....but I've had personal dealings with many over the years and am very unimpressed in their ability to get the facts right.

Hopefully when the court case is settled, other details of Rodenstock are made public. A full investigative background on the guy would be quite interesting to read, at least for me.



Bartholomew,

Thanks for chiming in, it's most appreciated, and I hope your father is successful and the record is set straight.

[Eric Ifune]

I have a different take. While Broadbent was probably not party to the fraud; he ignored the warning signs along the way which pointed to fraud. His battles with Sotheby's also doesn't place him in a good light. I think he still has a great and important legacy, but this wasn't his finest hour.

[Andy Velebil]

I have a different take. While Broadbent was probably not party to the fraud; he ignored the warning signs along the way which pointed to fraud. .

Eric,
Maybe because of my work background I am a little more sympathetic to Broadbent when it came to the warning signs. It's easy for us to look back on it now and see things when they are time compressed. Master con's are very good at their game and when they are eventually found out it's easy for us, the outsiders, to put all the little pieces together and see the warnings signs along the way. It wasn't just Broadbent involved here, but many people in the VERY upper end wine world that were also con'd. In this respect, Broadbent and others were the victims.

[Eric Ifune]

Andy,
I agree that Broadbent was a victim as well; hence my continued admiration for him, and I know we are look back with 20/20 hindsight, but I think he wanted to believe too much. An example would be tritely discounting the negative opinion of the world's authority on all things Jefferson. I would hope an auctioneer would be more dispassionate. As a result, some of his customers were defrauded.

[Andy Velebil]

Here is a story that came out today on the matter
http://www.slate.com/id/2224427/pagenum/all/#p2

[Moses Botbol]

Here is a story that came out today on the matter
http://www.slate.com/id/2224427/pagenum/all/#p2

Very good summary of the whole saga. I am still not sure that suing is the best way for him keep his legacy intact. I think he'll have a difficult case to win.

Did anyone taste one of the suspect Jefferson bottles?

[Eric Menchen]

That article concludes by echoing my sentiments above. I still agree with Moses on this one. The article does make one point that I didn't originally consider, but researched a little after my post. Assuming he wins the jurisdiction argument, Michael Broadbent was wise to file suit in the UK. He would likely (laws vary from state to state) have a harder time winning in the U.S., and an even harder time getting any sort of damages (although I'm guessing this isn't the first priority). In the U.S., if you are a public figure (political, actor, writer, etc.), which I would suggest Michael is, and you want to collect damages, you usually have to demonstrate not just that someone has defamed you, but that they have knowingly and deliberately misrepresented the truth, with malice possibly being a requirement as well.

As for a movie? Any movie will contain the usual disclaimer about all events and characters being fictional, even after the previews suggest it is inspired by a true story. I can't see any sort of defamation claim against a fictional movie in the U.S. going anywhere.

I still respect the Broadbent name. I like the Broadbent Auction Reserve, and purchased some Broadbent VP. I still need to try the Vinho Verde. This whole episode won't stop me from buying these, or reading Broadbent TNs.

[Bartholomew Broadbent]

Andy,
but I think he wanted to believe too much. An example would be tritely discounting the negative opinion of the world's authority on all things Jefferson. I would hope an auctioneer would be more dispassionate. As a result, some of his customers were defrauded.

This is interesting. For a start, my father sent a disclaimer with the catalogue stating that there was circumstancial evidence but no proof of the authenticity of this wine. Secondly, he did everything in his power before the auction to check the bottle with the glass and engraving experts amongst others. Thirdly, he has continued, to this day, to research the bottle, with some surprising news yet to be announced.

As to the comment about the "authority on all things Jefferson", I suppose you refer to the woman at Monticello who was quoted saying that there was no evidence suggesting that Jefferson had bottles engraved. Well, she was relatively new to Monticello and clearly not yet an expert on all things. The Jefferson library, incidentally, has more information than any individual could read in a life time. They have students studying there for years. But, to the point, there are books about Jefferson and Wine, which quote letters in which it states that the bottles were engraved. My father is not an expert on all things Jefferson but he has academically studied and admired Jefferson for over fifty years. Jefferson was a hero of his, probably before that woman you refer to was even born!

[Roy Hersh]

Now this is really getting interesting and we probably have some insights here that are not widely known or even reported at all. Very cool and thank you Bartholomew for adding a unique perspective and counterpoint to some of the tales woven by the author of the book.

[Andy Velebil]

For those who have not heard Micheal Broadbent has won a settlement in his case against the book's pulisher. I don't have all the details, but just heard about this. Hopefully Bartholomew can chime in and provide more.

[Eric Menchen]

http://www.luxist.com/2009/10/14/broadb ... r-lawsuit/
http://www.decanter.com/news/290467.html
http://www.decanter.com/news/news.php?id=290512
http://www.drvino.com/2009/10/13/wallac ... r-lawsuit/
(Don't read that last one if you are in the U.K., as this might be illegal )

I don't equate "won" with "settled out of court," but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[Bartholomew Broadbent]

For those who have not heard Micheal Broadbent has won a settlement in his case against the book's pulisher. I don't have all the details, but just heard about this. Hopefully Bartholomew can chime in and provide more.

The press release reads:
The libel action centred on the book The Billionaire’s Vinegar, the subject of which was the provenance of a number of bottles of wine said to have been owned by Thomas Jefferson. The book made allegations which suggested that Mr Broadbent had behaved in an unprofessional manner in the way in which he had auctioned some of these bottles and that his relationship and dealings with Hardy Rodenstock, who discovered the original collection, was suspected of being improper.

In a statement read out in open court today, Random House apologised unreservedly for making the allegations and accepted that they were untrue. It has given an undertaking not to repeat the allegations and paid Mr Broadbent undisclosed damages.

Commenting on the settlement Sarah Webb, head of Russell Jones & Walker’s Defamation department, who acted for Mr Broadbent said:

“The Billionaire’s Vinegar made highly damaging claims about my client that seriously compromised both his professional and personal reputation. We are delighted that Random House has today accepted that these allegations are totally without foundation and avoided the need to proceed to a full trial. My client is relieved that the good name he has built up over many years as one of the country’s leading wine experts has been fully restored.”

[Roy Hersh]

Christies wine expert wins defamation case over £105,000 'Jefferson bottle'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/1 ... ttles-case

[Andy Velebil]

Bartholomew,
Thanks for info. I have also read the the publisher can no longer sell the book in the UK. And as it seems, any other market where the book might end up in back in the UK. So that means it won't be sold in the US any longer either. I don't know if that info is true, but if so, a major victory for sure and a lesson for other writers to ensure they have the right facts before tossing allegations out there.