Yes, it was a so-called "enhanced hammer" deal where the commission that the seller normally pays to the auction house is inverted to flow the other way...assuming a minimum selling price has been reached. The intent is to encourage more ultra-high-end sellers to work with that auction house instead of another. The auction house still makes money from the fee that the buyer pays btw, ie the hammer price is not the price the buyer pays: they pay an extra 20% to the auction house.
So what seems to have happened here is that the seller set a de facto minimum of $70M before their deal with Sothebys would take effect, and, seeing that there was no interest, pulled the sale.
More details here: $70 Million Giacometti Flops at Sotheby’s, as Demand for Trophy Art Softens
Just for clarity - this was not an "enhanced hammer" deal. It was a simple fact that the consigner set their reserve at $70 million, and the consigner would not lower their reserve, even knowing the risk that the work would publicly fail at that level. An enhanced hammer deal is an entirely different situation, and it applies to third-party guarantees and/or irrevocable bids (know as IBs) – and neither apply in the specific situation...
So what seems to have happened here is that the seller set a de facto minimum of $70M before their deal with Sothebys would take effect, and, seeing that there was no interest, pulled the sale.
More details here: $70 Million Giacometti Flops at Sotheby’s, as Demand for Trophy Art Softens
https://news.artnet.com/market/70-million-giacometti-flops-a...