We have written on several occasions (see here, here, and here) about the tangle of disputes that have arisen from the discovery of multiple suspected forgeries of Old Master artworks.  Now, one such dispute has reached a settlement, and another has resulted in a judgment for Sotheby’s; but other questions about these works, and the Old Master market generally, remain.

​Last week, a cathedral in Germany agreed to turn over a valuable painting to the heirs of the family from whom it was stolen during World War II.  The case marks another example of the type of negotiated restitution that has become an important factor in art disputes in recent years, but stands in stark contrast to another dispute that ended in defeat a few months ago for the heirs of a Jewish art dealer who fled Germany in the years leading up to World War II. 

We here at Grossman LLP, along with many other legal commentators, have been following with interest the lawsuits against appropriation artist Richard Prince arising out of his controversial New Portraits works, first shown at the Gagosian Gallery in 2014, which Prince created from screen shots of photos taken by other Instagram users.  The court is now considering the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the issue of fair use, which have been fully briefed.  But along with the main event—the summary judgment motion—the court is also considering additional motions filed by both parties with regard to each other’s expert witnesses.  These motions are worth examining because they will presumably be resolved along with the summary judgment decision, and they raise some interesting questions that may have implications in the larger arena of fair use case law.

A lawsuit pending in the United Kingdom continues the ongoing debate about how much due diligence buyers must perform when purchasing artwork, including whether such buyers must investigate price histories.   

​A contentious lawsuit is underway between a Manhattan art gallery and its former director over her handling of purportedly-confidential information when she quit her job to accept a position at another gallery.  The case raises potentially important questions about one of the key assets of any art business—information about its customers and contacts. 

The long-running, globe-spanning dispute between two powerful figures in the international art world has taken a new turn, as one of the parties levels formal claims against auction giant Sotheby’s for its role in multiple purportedly fraudulent art deals.  The case continues to shine a spotlight on the often-convoluted and opaque nature of high-end art transactions.

This week, a family dispute over a Max Ferguson painting ripened into litigation, providing a cautionary tale for art collectors who loan their works to institutions and family members.

A recently-filed lawsuit provides insight into some of the risks involved in art transactions given the increased use of creative purchase structures and financing arrangements in the art market.

We continue to follow the ongoing conversation in the art world about how best to handle disputes over artwork that was looted or displaced during the chaos and persecution of World War II.  As one recent story demonstrates, sometimes a current possessor demonstrates willingness to return a work to rightful claimants but looks to a third party for compensation for the loss.

In a recent post, we discussed the European Parliament’s adoption earlier this month of a new Directive that will have far-reaching effects on Europe’s art market.  We predicted that the United States might soon follow the EU’s lead by implementing similar legislation.  Now, the U.S. Congress is officially headed down the same path.

Earlier this week, Justice O. Peter Sherwood of the New York County Supreme Court rejected collector Hubert Neumann’s attempt to prevent Sotheby’s from auctioning off Jean-Michael Basquiat’s monumental work, Flesh and Spirit.

On April 19, the European Parliament—the legislative body of the European Union—adopted the 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive.  The new legislation will significantly affect Europe’s art market, and prominent members of the art world have already expressed their concerns about the practical consequences of the Directive.

In a lawsuit filed last week in New York state court (see No. 651889/2018, N.Y. Co.), an art collector has sued over the problems he purportedly encountered in purchasing a sculpture by famed artist Jeff Koons.

In an important ruling issued last week, a New York state court dismissed claims by an art dealer who sued an artist’s catalogue raisonné for rejecting works the plaintiff had submitted for authentication.  The case has the potential to set an important precedent protecting art authenticators from disgruntled art owners.

New Mexico jewelry merchant Nael Ali will soon become the first person ever sentenced under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (“IACA”), a decades-old federal law that prohibits the sale of fake Native American goods.

Back in 2015, during the Obama Administration, we wrote about a tax proposal that could have eliminated a federal tax code mechanism frequently used by art investors to defer tax consequences from art transactions.  Ultimately, that proposal did not become law.  But now, a recently-released tax plan offered by Congressional Republicans could put the same mechanism back on the chopping block, at least in terms of art deals.  And if the plan becomes law, this change could have major implications for the high-end art market.

Famed artist Richard Prince is no stranger to litigation; over the years, he’s been sued by multiple plaintiffs whose art he has incorporated into his own “appropriation art” works.  A few years ago, he was the defendant in the Cariou v. Prince case, which resulted in an important Second Circuit Opinion about the fair-use defense to copyright infringement.

New York gallery owner Alex Komolov has emerged victorious in litigation against antiques dealer Jack Shaoul arising out of the sale of a fake Renoir. Komolov, owner of the Alskom Gallery, sued Shaoul in 2013 for unjust enrichment, conversion, and fraudulent misrepresentation, claiming that the dealer sold him a forged Renoir painting for $1.1million in 2010. After trial, a jury awarded Komolov the full purchase price plus interest. According to Komolov’s attorney, Shaoul previously served 40 months in prison for mail and wire fraud and conspiracy, including misattribution of a painting.