Dealer v. Dealer in NY & London

Litigation is in the air as New York’s courts get ready for the trial next week between Edelman Arts and Art International which pits Asher Edelman against Michele Faggionato over a failed Mondrian sale from six years ago.

That case may get operatic but The Art Newspaper has already submitted it’s choice for the most dramatic turn in an dealer court case citing the opinion of a judge who sent Simon Dickinson off to sue Danielle Luxembourg.

The case involves a Leonardo drawing that the buyer felt wasn’t a Leonardo:

Judge Vos suggested that it was a third party, Luxembourg Art Ltd, which might be at fault. He commented in his judgment: “It is about two innocent parties who have been forced to litigate because of the conduct of a third, whom neither has chosen to bring before the Court, ­namely LAL [Luxembourg Art Ltd] and Ms Luxembourg… Ms Luxembourg knew full well that Dickinson was taking a turn [profit], and I am fairly confident that Mr Dickinson was right to say that she had a good idea what turn he was making. It was (at least primarily) her function to disclose these matters to her principal, Accidia, and…I am sure she did not do so.”

Dickinson has caused his own mischief where Leonardo is concerned. The dealer gave an opinion that a drawing sold at Christie’s a dozen years ago by would be worth $100 million if it were a Leonardo. Unfortunately, the couple who sold the drawing as the work of a German artist were inflamed to sue Christie’s when it was later claimed the work was really by the Renaissance master. Nonetheless, Reuters says a judge dismissed the case for being filed too late. Had the judge been as opinionated as Judge Vos, he might have added that Leonardo attribution was not to be banked upon either.

Dickinson to Sue Luxembourg (The Art Newspaper)

Lawsuit accusing Christie’s of mishandling sale is dismissed (Reuters)