RMS Titanic Inc Sues Former Directors

Not open for further replies.

The St. Petersburg Times (14 Nov 03, "Lawsuit Filed Over 'Titanic' Artifacts") reports that RMS Titanic, Inc has filed suit against three former directors seeking recovery of artifacts given away and videos of recovery operations. In the Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court filing, the company is suing former company president George Tulloch, former general counsel and director Allan Carlin, and former director Paul-Henri Nargeolet. RMS Titanic alleges that Tulloch gave artifacts away while working at the company, and that many of these artifacts were given to friends or relatives. Carlin, as general counsel, allegedly knew of this activity.

Additionally, the company alleges that Nargeolet and Carlin failed to disclose the existence of video and film concerning company operations, which includes recovery operations.

The suit seeks $4 million in damages.

(My thanks to Bill Willard for heads up on this)

I would rather see RMST spend their energies going after the alleged pirates that quietly raided the wreck this time last year. But, that's just my opinion.

It is a rather curious move on the part of the company. Their legal history is not a good one. They have lost appeals to restrict photographs and dives to the wreck (they hold salvage rights but you can dive down and look at the wreck). Then they sued posters on an Internet web site (which was dismissed by the judge).

Then there is a suit against a former director, G. Michael Harris for improper use of funds (which I am not sure is resolved or not). Then there is the business of the whole removal of Tulloch which may or may not have conformed to SEC or Florida regs and is rumored to be under SEC investigation. A stockholders meeting to confirm the board's decision to abandon the salvage claim had to be put off because the SEC had not yet signed off on it. And there is a class action lawsuit still pending against the company by a shareholder. And Joe Marsh is acquiring a lot of stock as well in a bid to become a very large shareholder.

And to add more problems, the British have signed on to the Titanic treaty.

Yikes! Their legal bills must be huge!

To say that RMSTI's legal history is not a good one is the grandest of understatements IMO. What do they think they're going to accomplish with this beyond squandering even more money that they really don't have? Say what you will about George Tulloch, and I know that views vary wildly, he at least kept the company solvant and focused.

I'm with Parks on this. I think RMSTI would do far better to go after the pirates who raided the wreck this year.
I haven't found much info about that "pirate" expedition to the wreck (except that it happened). Would anyone have more info about that? (what subs they used, what artifacts were recovered, if they're trying to sell those artifacts now, etc)


That's exactly what I would like to know. I only know a piece here and a piece there, but not enough to complete the entire puzzle...not by a long shot. But I've heard enough second- and third-hand accounts to suspect that something's rotten in the state of Denmark...or in this case, the city of Liverpool.

I heard there was a Palm Beach county company that was pirating the wreck site, but I couldn't get more information than that. I'm in a position (being a resident of PB Co.) to check it out if anyone knows anything about them. Also, I know Troy Launay worked with the Magellan sub and he lives or lived in the area - I can't imagine he would have anything to do with the piracy.

James, this is something we would all like to know. As it stands, all I "know" about this expedition is what's been posted on this forum, in this very folder a few months ago, and that was sketchy at best.

Whoever these blokes are, they're not advertising!
If so, it's a strange investment scheme and given their rotten track record in court, one where RMSTI stands a really good chance of losing. Read that to mean throwing good money...which they really don't have...after bad. Not a smart move when they're already swimming in a sea of red ink.
Given that they nearly lost it again in that final attempt, I suspect I'd have been chain smoking too.

Dave Tuttle

Former Member
Don't you mean the "two semi-big" pieces? So interesting that after recovery, the arguments started as to which of the two travelling exhibits would get it. Then came the rotating two-weeks alternating in each city plan. Of course, we then get told that dividing the section in two was a must for transportation concerns. But, SURPRISE!!! If you cut it in two, then each show unit gets a piece, and travel is no longer a concern at all! (That must be how they ended up with the loose porthole and frame we have currently on display in Raleigh, huh?)

Best to All,
Dave Tuttle
"The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that ignorance can be cured." (RMSTI - take note!)
Not open for further replies.