Below are our selected archives of 2019 art law cases, ranked by date of filing or opinion.
Last updated: Sept. 4, 2019.
One and J Gallery v. Christie’s Inc. et al, No. 650005/2019 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. filed Jan. 02, 2019). One and J Gallery’s motion for a temporary injunction pending arbitration to halt Christie’s sale of an unnamed Francis Bacon painting, worth at least $10 million, has been discontinued. Christie’s acted as the exclusive agent of One and J Gallery, however, One and J Gallery alleged that Christie’s sought to sell the painting in a “commercially unreasonable manner in violation of the U.C.C.” At the time that One and J Gallery entered into this agreement with Christie’s, One and J Gallery received a loan from Christie’s in the amount of $4.9 million. The sale of the Bacon painting was going to pay down the loan. However, One and J Gallery alleged that Christie’s made no attempts to sell the work and later Christie’s sold an additional work provided by One and J Gallery for less than market value, in order to begin repayment of the loan. The litigation has since been discontinued.
De Csepel, et al. v. Republic of Hungary, et al., No. 17-1165 (U.S. Jan. 7, 2019). On January 7, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States deniedthe Herzog family’s petition for certiorari. The Herzogs are heirs of Baron Mor Lipot Herzog, a Jewish art collector, whose artwork was stolen during WWII. The heirs have been attempting to reclaim the works from Hungary to no avail. The writ proposed the Supreme Court examine questions of jurisdiction.
Kush et al v. Grande et al., No. 2:2019cv00186 (D. Nev. filed Jan. 31, 2019). Artist Vladimir Kush is suing singer Arianna Grande for copyright infringement for scenes in her music video “God is a Woman.” The case centers around the representation of a woman dancing in the wick of a candle. Kush claims that Grande, her record label, and others involved in the music video, copied his expression of that concept.
The Art and Antique Dealers League of Am., Inc. et al v. Basil Seggos, No. 1:2018cv02504 (S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 1, 2019). The Art and Antiques Dealers League of America brought an action against the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) claiming that the New York State Environmental Conservation Law § 11-0535-A is unconstitutional. The law forbids the selling and trading of ivory articles and the dealers claim that the state law is preempted by federal law which has a broader antiques exception. The court has dismissed the claim.
Patrick Hoelck v. Billionaire Boulevard, Inc. et al., No. 2:2019cv00939 (C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 7, 2019). Photographer Patrick Hoelck is suing a number of companies alleging that they reproduced T-shirts that contained images substantially similar to his portrait of rapper Ice Cube. Complaint available upon request.
Vismanos et al., v. Philippe Hoerle-Guggenheim, No. 2:2019cv01115 (C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 13, 2019). Art dealer Philippe Hoerle-Guggenheim is being sued for fraud after accepting payment for paintings which were never received. The plaintiffs, collectors Liza Vismanos and Randy Rosen purchased three paintings, including a Renoir, and claim Hoerle-Guggenheim has repaid a portion of the funds but has been evasive about the artwork and further payments.
U.S. v. Boone, 18-cr-634 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 14, 2019). Mary Boone, the New York-based art dealer has been sentenced to 30 months in jail for tax evasion. Supporters of Boone suggested house arrest. However, the court determined, in-line with the government’s sentencing memorandum, that Boone should serve time for her actions. Both of Boone’s galleries will be closing with their final exhibitions ending on April 27th.
U.S. v. Gimelson, No. 1:17-CR-00094-TWP-MJD (7th Cir., filed on Feb. 15, 2018). The US government filed an intent to sue Brian Gimelson for tax evasion after his involvement in the sale of a Caravaggio painting. Green Moss Partners, established by Gimelson, sold the painting for approximately $1.2 million and never paid the appropriate taxes. Gimelson pleaded guilty to two counts of attempting to evade taxes, and subsequently filed an appeal before the 7th Circuit on February 15, 2019.
Castillo v. G&M Realty L.P., No. 0:18-CV-00498 (2d. Cir. filed Feb. 22, 2018). In February 2018, the graffiti artists of 5Pointz were awarded statutory damages in the amount of $6.75 million after real estate developer Gerald Wolkoff whitewashed the 45 street art paintings before receiving permits to demolish the buildings on which they were painted just 10 months later. Wolkoff filed an appeal in the 2d Circuit soon after Judge Block’s decision, on the assertion that the court mistakenly found the artworks to be of “recognized stature,” claims that the artworks had “no economic value,” and requests that the case be reassigned to a new judge if remanded, claiming Judge Block’s “impartiality is in question.” Case calendaring has been scheduled for the week of August 26, 2019 to determine the trial date for the appeal.
State St. Glob. Advisors Tr. Co. v. Visbal, No. 650981 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. filed Feb. 25, 2019).The investment firm State Street Global made headlines two years ago when the firm commissioned artist Kristen Visbal to create the ‘Fearless Girl’ statue located in Bowling Green. After discovering that Visbal created replicas for display, State Street Global filed a trademark infringement action against the artist. The motions for a preliminary injunction and restraining order in the “Fearless Girl” lawsuit were both denied, on grounds of lack of jurisdiction by the New York Supreme Court. The company who had commissioned the “Fearless Girl” statue, originally placed in front of the “Raging Bull” on Wall Street, sued the artist for making and selling unauthorized copies of the sculpture. The case has since been transferred to the Southern District of New York.
Gowen v. Helly Nahmad Gallery, Inc., 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 01350 (1st Dep’t Feb. 26, 2019). In the suit seeking the return of “Seated Man with Cane” (1918), a Modigliani painting allegedly looted by the Nazi-occupied French government, the First Department determined that defendants’ motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds was properly denied in 2018. Because the plaintiff and several defendants maintained residences in New York and the key documents had been translated for the court, the First Department ruled that the defendants failed to meet their heavy burden of dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens.
Molis v. Sotheby’s, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-01987 (S.D.N.Y. March 1, 2019). Patrick Molis, a collector of modern art, is suing Sotheby’s for fraudulent inducement after he consigned a Picasso entitled “Nu Assis Dans Un Fauteuil” (1963) to a representative of the auction house. Molis alleges that he agreed to the consignment on the condition that it would be sold to a private collector. Sotheby’s sold the work to a public collector for under market value, without Molis’ knowledge. Molis is now claiming misrepresentation. Originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, the case was moved on March 1, 2019, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. Wall-Street.com, No. 17-571 (U.S. Mar. 4, 2019). The Supreme Court of the United States has officially spoken on whether an action for copyright infringement can be brought prior to registration being granted by the copyright office. The question emerged after petitioner, the Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation, ended its licensing agreement with respondent, Wall-Street.com, LLC. Fourth Estate brought an action for copyright infringement when Wall-Street.comcontinued to use licensed materials. However, Fourth Estate was still in the process of obtaining its copyright registration. The Supreme Court ruled that a lawsuit can only be brought once the Copyright Office registers the copyright and not during the process of registration. However, a copyright owner can still recover for copyright infringement that occurred before and after the registration.
Metcalfe v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-02357 (S.D.N.Y. filed March 15, 2019). Dominic Sebastian Leon Metcalfe, an artist and designer based in Amsterdam, Netherlands, has filed a complaint against Ulta Salon for counterfeiting of one of his holographic artworks on the packaging of Ulta’s beauty products, alleging violations of copyright law. The complaint is available upon request.
Williams et al. v. The Nat’l Gallery, London, et al. No. 18-997 (U.S. Mar. 18, 2019). The three grandchildren of Greta Moll, the subject of a portrait by Matisse, have been litigating in the US for compensation from the National Gallery of London. Moll’s heirs claim that the painting was stolen, in violation of international law, and that they should be compensated for their lost property. The family filed a petition for certiorari after the Second Circuit ruled against them, finding that the National Gallery acquired the painting in good faith and not in violation of international law. Therefore, the Second Circuit found that the National Gallery was subject to presumptive immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The Supreme Court of the United States’ denial of certiorari essentially ends the claimants’ cases before US courts.
Art & Antique Dealers League of Am., Inc. v. Seggos, No. 1:18-CV-02504 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 20, 2018). Last year, two trade associations of New York-based art and antiques dealers filed suit against Basil Seggos, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, seeking invalidation of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, prohibiting the sale of antiques containing 20% or more of ivory. They claim that the ECL is preempted by federal law. After a procedural back-and-forth between the parties, the dealers’ third amended complaint has been permitted to proceed in court as of March 2019.
U.S. v. The Painting Formerly Entitled A Family Portrait And Currently Entitled An Amorous Couple Or Alternatively A Loving Glance By The Artist Pierre Louis Goudreaux, No. 1:2019-cv-02517 (S.D.N.Y filed Mar. 21, 2019).The United States government had begun a civil forfeiture action for a Rococo painting that was stolen seventy years ago by the Nazis as they fled Kiev. The painting by Pierre Louis Goudreaux, known now as “An Amorous Couple,” had been missing from the Khanenko Museum since 1943, until it was put up for auction in 2013.
Silver v. Gagosian Gallery, Inc. et al, No. 652090/2018 (NY Sup. Ct., Mar. 14, 2019) and Tananbaum v. Gagosian Gallery, Inc.et al, No. 651889/2018 (NY Sup. Ct., Mar. 22, 2019). Two collectors, Silver and Tananbaum, have brought separate actions against the Gagosian Gallery. The collectors purchased works by Jeff Koons from the gallery, however, they allege that the gallery misrepresented the status of the artworks and that the production of the works has been unreasonably slow. The Gagosian sought to have Silver’s complaint dismissed, however the motion to dismiss was denied.
Estate of Margaret Kainer et al v. UBS AG et al., 2018-968 (1st Dep’t filed Mar. 27, 2018). The plaintiffs, heirs of Margaret Kainer, are seeking the restitution of artworks that were stolen by the Nazis and are now in the possession of the Defendants, UBS AG, UBS Global Asset Management, Inc., Norbert Stiftung f/k/a, and Edgar Kircher (“Foundations”). The estate alleges that these defendants conspired with co-defendant Christie’s to deprive the estate of their right in these artworks by falsely claiming that these Foundations were legitimate heirs of Margaret Kainer, in order to create a marketable title.
Mercedes Benz USA LLC v. Daniel Bombardier, No. 2:19-cv-10951 (E.D. Mich. filed on March 29, 2019). Mercedes is seeking a declaratory judgment to validate their use of a street mural created by artist Daniel Bombardier, also known as DENIAL. The feud started over Instagram when the company posted a series of pictures featuring its G 500 Series truck in front of the Detroit mural. The street artist threatened Mercedes with a copyright lawsuit, to which they replied that they “respect artists and the arts” and that “it regularly partners with cultural institutions and supports art festivals to advance the arts.” Complaint available here.
U.S. v. Rohana, 2:18-cr-00100 (E.D. Pa. 2019). The case against shoe-salesman Michael Rohana ended on April 12, 2019, in a mistrial due to a jury split on acquittal. The case was brought after an incident that occurred in December of 2017, when Rohana attended an ugly-sweater party at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. Apparently drunk and disoriented, Rohana entered a closed terracotta warrior exhibition and broke the thumb off of one of the statues, subsequently keeping the thumb in his desk drawer. Rohana was charged with two federal crimes: theft and concealment of a cultural heritage item. Rohana’s lawyer argued that the law used to prosecute his client was established for art heists and thieves, not drunken misdeeds. Order available upon request.
Portland Museum of Art v. Germain, No. CV- 17-299 (Me. Super. Ct. Cumberland County Ct., 2018). The Portland Museum of Art (PAM) in Maine is suing Anne Marie Germain, the caretaker of art collector and museum donor, Eleanor G. Potter. Until 2015, the museum was Potter’s primary beneficiary of $2 million. However, in 2015, Potter amended her will leaving the bulk of her estate to Germain. Potter subsequently passed away in March, at the age of 89. The museum has accused Germain of elder abuse and claims that she manipulated Potter into changing her will. Germain maintains that she was a friend of Potter and was without ill-intention when acting on her behalf.
Silver v. Gagosian Gallery, Inc., No. 652090/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed Apr. 12, 2019). In April 2018, Hollywood Producer Joel Silver sued Gagosian alleging the gallery failed to deliver a Jeff Koons sculpture, Balloon Venus Hohlen Fels, which Silver purchased for $8 million in 2014. He sought the return of the $3.2 million he had paid to date, plus interest and fees. In June, the producer dropped his lawsuitafter it was revealed that billionaire art collector Ron Perelman – who had previously sued the gallery in 2014 over artwork transactions valued at $45 million – was secretly paying Silver’s legal fees. Gagosian and Silver reportedly reached a settlement in which Silver agreed to move forward with the purchase.
Allen v. Kilmer, No. 1:18-CV-00907-GBW-JFR (D.N.M. filed May 3, 2019). Last September, Texan artist Bale Creek Allen brought a copyright infringement suit against Val Kilmer for the actor-turned-artist’s 22kt Tumbleweedsculpture. It is undenied that Allen had been creating and selling Tumbleweed sculptures in galleries in Santa Fe and Austin for several years prior, and according to the complaint, Kilmer spoke with Allen – under the pretense that he was interested in acquiring one of Allen’s Tumbleweed sculptures – inquiring about the process and inspiration for his creations. Kilmer then created his own nearly identical sculpture, which Allen is seeking to stop production, display or publishing. Kilmer’s May 3, 2019 answer asserts that Allen’s works are uncopyrightable, lacking the requisite originality, and that Allen did not register his copyright until after Kilmer had created his sculptures, therefore limiting Allen’s right to recovery.
Greenway II, LLC v. Wildenstein & Co., No. 1:19-CV-04093 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 7, 2019). Greenway is a trust representing Mr. Wallace, a private collector, and has filed a suit against New York’s Wildenstein & Co. gallery for common law fraud based upon the sale of a Pierre Bonnard painting “Still Life with Basket of Fruit”, which was recently discovered to be inauthentic. The artwork was acquired from the Trust’s predecessor in 1985 for $275,000 and transferred to Greenway for estate planning purposes in 2017. In 2018, leading Bonnard expert Guy-Patrice Dauberville advised that the painting was inauthentic. The suit alleged that Wildenstein failed to conduct research on the authenticity of the painting and failed to disclose the work’s absence from Bonnard’s catalogue raisonnés. Wildenstein filed a Motion to Dismiss primarily based on (1) the plaintiff’s lack of standing because the right to bring suit has not been expressly been assigned to Greenway, (2) the fact that that the Trust itself had access to the catalogue raisonné, and (3) that the trust failed to prove Wildenstein’s intent to defraud.
White v. Freedman, No. 1:13-CV-01193 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2019). On May 8, Judge Paul Gardephe of the Southern District of New York permitted two collectors’ claims of fraud to proceed against the owners of the now-closed Knoedler gallery, Michael Hammer and his company, 831 Holdings. Both plaintiffs had purchased fake Abstract Expressionist paintings from the gallery in the early 2000s. Although Judge Gardephe dismissed direct claims against Hammer and 831, on the basis that they did not necessarily know the paintings were frauds, he did hold them liable for any fraud committed by gallery itself. The decision is based on the possibility that Hammer may have mixed his personal and business expenses, eliminating any limited liability protection he would have had as company owner.
The People of the State of N.Y. v. Sorokin, No. 02441/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 9, 2019). Former New York art-world socialite Anna Delvey Sorokin was found guilty on eight counts, including grand larceny in the first, second, and third degrees, and theft of services. She was sentenced this May to four to 12 years in prison and was ordered to pay $198,596 in restitution and $24,000 in fines. Delvey, as she is better known in the art world, claimed to be a German heiress Among and a lifelong art collector. She had elaborated plans to establish the “Anna Delvey Foundation,” a luxury art club on Park Avenue South in Manhattan, for which she tried to secure investors and a bank loan of upwards of $20 million.
Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 3446 (May 20, 2019). In July 2018, pursuant to the Act of State Doctrine, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision to let a pair of paintings by Lucas Cranach the Elder, “Adam” and “Eve,” remain in the collection of the Norton Simon Museum of Art in Pasadena, California. Von Saher petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case, but certiorari was denied on May 20, 2019.
Ciccone v. Gotta Have It! Collectibles, Inc., 2019 Slip Op. 04333 (N.Y. App. Div. June 4, 2019). Last year, Madonna filed for an injunction to prevent Gotta Have It! Collectibles from holding a sale of her personal belongings, which were consigned to the auction house by Madonna’s ex-art advisor, Darlene Lutz. While a temporary injunction was granted in July 2017, the Manhattan Supreme Court reversed in April 2018, lifting the injunction and dismissing the case after finding that Madonna’s claims were time-barred due to the passing of the three-year statute of limitations. On June 4th, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision. The sale of the contested items is scheduled to begin on July 17, 2019.
Shope v. Frida Kahlo Corporation, No. 1:19-cv-01614 (D. Colo. filed June 5, 2019). On May 27, a third controversy arose surrounding the Frida Kahlo Corporation’s (“FKC”) assertion of their trademark rights to the artist’s name and likeness. FKC submitted a “notice of intellectual property infringement” to online arts and crafts retailer Etsy, against the work of folk artist Nina Shope who creates dolls using the likeness and name of Kahlo. The artwork listings reported by FKC were removed by Etsy, though many more of Shope’s Frida Kahlo dolls remain available for purchase. In response, Shope filed suit in the District of Colorado against FKC on June 5th seeking a declaratory injunction of non-infringement. Shope maintains that use of Kahlo’s name and likeness for creation of dolls is not an infringing use.
Lam v. Mamacha LLC et al, Index No. 653320/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 6, 2019). On June 6th, Dallas-based artist Dan Lam sued New York gallery The Hole and Mamacha Cafe for allegedly failing to pay the artist for her artworks following a 2018 exhibition. Lam claims she has been paid only $6,000 out of a total of nearly $36,000 owed for twenty-one artworks. Eight of the artworks were sold, while the others were lost or damaged. The Hole claims that Mamacha is the only party in a fiscal relationship with Lam, but Lam maintains that her works were consigned with both parties and thus both are properly named as defendants in the suit.
Lehmann Maupin LLC v. Yoo, 1:18-cv-11126-AJN (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2019).Last fall, Lehmann Maupin Gallery filed suit against former employee Bona Yoo for allegedly stealing Trade Secrets. The gallery accused Yoo of taking confidential client information when she left to become a Sales Director at Lévy Gorvy. In response, Yoo countersued on the basis that the gallery’s suit was filed out of spite and they did not have exclusive rights to the data. On June 10th, 2019, the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case with prejudice. No comment has been made as to whether the parties reached an out-of-court settlement.
Philipp v. Fed. Republic of Germany, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18188 (D.C. Cir. filed June 18, 2019). Last year, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the heirs of the art dealers who sold the Guelph Treasure may pursue their claims against the Federal Republic of Germany and the Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz in U.S. Federal Court. On June 18th, the court denied the defendants’ petition for rehearing en banc. The claims against Germany and the SPK were filed under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, on the basis that the forced sales were in violation of international law. This decision confirms last year’s ruling that claimants do not have to exhaust all remedies abroad before pursuing their claims against sovereign defendants in U.S. courts.
Moi v. Chihuly Studio, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103576 (W.D. Wash. June 20, 2019). In May 2017, Michael Moi brought suit against Dale Chihuly, claiming he co-authored certain artworks and was thus owed over $20 million dollars from the sales. On June 20th, Chihuly’s motion for summary judgment was granted, thereby dismissing all claims brought by Moi. The District Court for the Western District of Washington held that Moi could not prove joint authorship, independent copyrightable interest, nor did he have a claim under promissory estoppel, and, finally, Moi’s claims were time barred by the three-year statute of limitations for copyright claims.
Accent Delight Int’l Ltd. v. Sotheby’s, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105864 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2019). In October 2018, Russian billionaire and art collector Dmitry Rybolovlev brought suit against Sotheby’s, alleging the auction house materially assisted art advisor Yves Bouvier in defrauding Rybolovlev of approximately $1 billion by overcharging the collector on thirty-eight works of art. Sotheby’s was involved in the sales of 14 of the artworks in question, for which Rybolovlev seeks $380 million in damages. Sotheby’s filed a motion to dismiss the New York lawsuit and to keep certain records sealed. On June 25th, the district court for the Southern District of New York largely denied the motion to dismiss and denied in part and granted in part the motion to seal, meaning this suit can proceed despite the fact that the parties also have ongoing litigations internationally.
Zuckerman v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19057 (2d Cir. June 26, 2019). The Metropolitan Museum of Art has prevailed against the heirs of German Jewish businessman Paul Leffman in their claim to the painting The Actor by Pablo Picasso. Leffman sold the painting in 1938 for $12,000, in order to fund the family’s escape from fascist Italy to Switzerland after they had fled Nazi Germany the prior year. The painting was donated to the Met in 1952, but the family did not bring a claim to the painting until 2010. Previously, the District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the family failed to demonstrate the painting was sold under duress. On appeal, the Second Circuit again dismissed the case, this time on the basis that the plaintiff’s claim was time barred under the equitable defense of laches.
The Andy Warhol Foundation For The Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith et al, No.1:17-cv-02532 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2019). The District Court for the Southern District of Manhattan ruled on July 1st that Andy Warhol’s use of Lynn Goldsmith’s 1981 photograph of iconic pop singer Prince was fair use, based on a finding that Warhol’s series was “transformative.” The Andy Warhol Foundation’s motion for declaratory judgment was granted and Goldsmith’s countersuit was denied, concluding the litigation that began in 2017. Read our Case Review.
Morgan Art Found. Ltd. v. McKenzie, No. 1:18-cv-04438-AT (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2019). Heated legal action has surrounded the estate of Robert Indiana since the day before his death last May. As we reported, the suit was initiated by the Morgan Art Foundation, Indiana’s agent for the past twenty years, against American Image Art, its founder Michael McKenzie, and Indiana’s employee Jamie Thomas, alleging copyright and trademark infringement among other claims. American Image Art and McKenzie filed counterclaims, alleging the Morgan failed to fully pay Indiana royalties and that the Morgan fabricated unauthorized reproductions of his famous sculptures. On July 1st, 2019 the District Court for the Southern District of New York largely dismissed the counterclaims against the Morgan. Then, on July 2nd, attorneys for American Image Art and McKenzie filed to withdraw as counsel.
The Mayor Gallery Ltd. v. The Agnes Martin Catalogue Raisonné LLC, No. 655489/2016, 2019 WL 2902163 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 5, 2019). For the second time, London-based James Mayor Gallery attempted to sue Arne and Marc Glimcher, of Pace Gallery, as well as Tiffany Bell, the editor of the Agnes Martin Catalogue Raisonné. The Gallery alleged that the defendants “unlawfully” declared 13 authentic Agnes Martin works inauthentic, costing the Gallery over $7 million. In July, a New York Supreme Court Judge dismissed the suit stating the claims were “vague” and “speculative,” and alleged no new facts since the 2016 suit, which was dismissed in 2018. Counsel for the James Mayor Gallery has indicated they intend to appeal the decision.
Reif v. Nagy, No. 161799/15, 2019 WL 2931960 (N.Y. App. Div. July 9, 2019). The First Department of New York’s Appellate Division unanimously ruled that two Egon Schiele paintings belonged to the claimants, heirs of Austrian-Jewish cabaret performer, Fritz Grünbaum. The decision revoked possession from London-based art dealer, Richard Nagy, who had owned the paintings since 2013. The court found for the claimants on the basis that they had established a prima facie case of superior title over the defendant; the court also determined that the doctrine of laches did not bar the claim.
People of New York v. Sanjeeve Asokan et al., 2019 NY 022431 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. filed July 10, 2019). Infamous Indian antiquities dealer, Subhash Kapoor, was charged with 86 counts of grand larceny, possession of stolen property, and conspiracy to defraud, alongside seven other defendants in a 185-page criminal complaint filed by prosecutors on July 10. The charges stem from a smuggling ring Kapoor allegedly ran for thirty years starting in 1986, and cover 2,600 looted artifacts worth a total of more than $145 million. Kapoor has been extradited to and held in India since his 2011 arrest in Germany.
Stuart Pivar v. John Mcfadden, 2019 NY 156970 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed July 16, 2019). Collector Stuart Pivar filed a lawsuit against attorney John McFadden after McFadden allegedly deceived Pivar into selling him a Constantin Brancusi bronze for $100,000, a fraction of its worth. McFadden had agreed to establish a family foundation for Stuart Pivar and assist in organizing the Pivar art collection. Pivar claims that McFadden had agreed to assist in selling the bronze, Mlle. Pogany II, to the Philadelphia Museum of Art or Christie’s, but that McFadden had no intention of doing so and aimed to obtain the Brancusi for himself. Pivar is demanding $200 million in damages for the fraud.
Goffman v. Sotheby’s, No. 19-CV-06733 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 17, 2019), Stein v. Sotheby’s, No. 19-CV-06669 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 17, 2019), and Kent v. Sotheby’s, No. 12-CV-01374 (D. Del., filed July 23, 2019). After the June 2019 announcement that Sotheby’s Auction House would be sold for $3.7 billion to BidFair USA, owned by French-Israeli Businessman Patrick Drahi, three shareholders have sued the Auction House and its board of directors. The complaints cite “materially incomplete and misleading information” as the basis for the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are seeking undisclosed damages and a preliminary injunction against the sale pending further disclosures. Sotheby’s released a statement saying the lawsuits were “expected and routine,” and the company does not believe the lawsuits to affect the closing of the sale later this year.
Portland Museum of Art v. Annemarie Germain, 2019 ME 80, 208 A.3d 772 (Me. Super. Ct. Cumberland County Ct., July 22, 2019). The Portland Museum of Art was awarded $4.6 million in its lawsuit against the late art collector Eleanor G. Potter’s caregiver Annemarie Germaine. A longtime supporter and committee member to the museum, Potter named the museum as a benefactor to receive the entirety of her art collection and an estimated $3.3 million. Subsequently, her will was changed such that Potter’s entire estate went to Germaine. The museum sued Germaine on the basis of elder abuse and coercion. On remand from the Supreme Court of Maine, the jury agreed and issued the award. Germaine intends to appeal the verdict.
Julian Rivera v. Walmart, Inc. et al, No. 2:19-cv-06550 (C.D. Cal. filed on July 29, 2019). Artist Julian Rivera, best known for his designs of a heart spelling the word “Love,” has filed a copyright lawsuit against Walmart and Ellen DeGeneres, after the defendants collaborated on a clothing line with striking similarities to the plaintiff’s work. The complaint asserts that “Defendants’ exploitation […] is particularly damaging because Rivera has carefully avoided any association with corporate culture or mass-market consumerism,” who is seeking damages for copyright and trademark infringement, along with unfair business practices. Complaint available upon request.