Maine Antique Digest (David Hewett) addendum to their 2008 publication :
What's Blocking the Successful Sale of a Klimt Drawing (08/25/09)
What's Blocking the Successful Sale of a Klimt Drawing
by David Hewett
We noted in an August 2008 article ("Would-be Seller of Klimt Sues Would-be Buyer for $1.2 Million") that Maggie Wachter, the owner of a Gustav Klimt drawing, had filed a lawsuit against New York City's Quatrochi Art Agents and the moving and storage firm Day & Meyer, Murray & Young Corp. for failing to complete the contract terms for the purchase of the drawing and return it to her.
We have been informed by Paul Quatrochi that any delays in completing the contract have been solely due to the prospective seller. "The provenance of the work was utterly misrepresented by Ms. Wachter [the seller], and had to be entirely deconstructed, employing extensive research, scholars, and governmental authorities. Any purported breach is solely due to the extent of the research my client contracted me to do, as his agent."
Quatrochi added, "We have consistently endeavoured in good faith to return the work to Wachter's counsel, with our offer having been consistently declined. We also have made proposals to buy out Wachter's interest, with no reply."
About the lawsuit, Quatrochi said, "I should also clarify that the action was levied against a dormant [New York state] corporation, and not me personally-the corporation having been closed now for some time. Such conduct has baffled me and my attorneys, and perhaps Wachter ought to rethink her choice of counsel."
Originally published in the September 2009 issue of Maine Antique Digest. (c) 2009 Maine Antique Digest
ShareThisLogin or Register to post a Comment
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Art Law Blog - "Klimt case"
Posted as a post-script to Quatrochi's 24 July 2009 blog submission:
PS: I think in the interest of truth-telling, I am surprised by the short-sightedness of Wachter's counsel, who expect the exercise of a mere option and agreement to buy a drawing (in a domestic civil court), to trump, eclipse, or enjoy a higher priority than my higher duty to the international art markets (and international criminal courts), to prevent any potentially ill-gotten gains and spoils of war from being 'sold' to good-faith BFPs (and such acts of spoliation)- only furthering and contributing to the litigious character of the art world. As I have previously said, all good-faith sellers of good character have never forbiddden me in past time from doing my requisite due diligence and research- all conducted at the instruction of the buyer, for whom I dutifully serve as 'agent'. Also as previously stated we have offered on endless occasions to return the work from safe-keeping (D&M) to Wachter's counsel with our offer consistently being declined, or our unwaivering offer to buy out Wachter's interest with no reply. This is baffling and untoward conduct from opposition counsel that I have never seen before, and certainly confusing enough to altogether befuddle my attorneys and colleagues in the art community. I also add that since the inception of Wachter's action (June 2008), countered with our consistent initiatives to have Wachter's lawyers discontinue the action (with or without prejudice) so as to sell the work, were met by Wachter's counsel with no reply whatsoever, despite our clear indication that the art markets, as well as the financial and credit markets were collapsing meteorically. In the meantime the Mei Moses art index indicates that the value of the international art markets has declined some 45% to date from our first entreaty to her lawyers (just 32% since March 2009). This inaction of her lawyers alone is grounds for censure, as they have only compounded the misery-index of our collective predicament and are accomplices in the furtherance and compounding of their own client's alleged damages. The invocation of the doctrine of laches is appropriate : Vigilantibus non dormientibus oequitas subvenit! An affirmative defense, this prejudicial delay to any proposed resolution clearly underscores the malicious character of the action, and lends itself to legitimate criticism as a frivolous suit which ought be summarily dismissed. See Solow v Nine West Group, 2001 WL 736794, *3 (SDNY June 29 2001); Simons v USA 452 F 2d 1110, 1116 (2nd Cir. 1971) (affirming Rule 12 (b) (6) dismissed based on laches where papers "reveal no reason for the inordinate and prejudicial delay".
It should be noted that a complaint will soon be lodged against opposition counsel Bernstein, McInnis and Bileris for egregious conduct by these offices with the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the NYS Bar Association.
PS: I think in the interest of truth-telling, I am surprised by the short-sightedness of Wachter's counsel, who expect the exercise of a mere option and agreement to buy a drawing (in a domestic civil court), to trump, eclipse, or enjoy a higher priority than my higher duty to the international art markets (and international criminal courts), to prevent any potentially ill-gotten gains and spoils of war from being 'sold' to good-faith BFPs (and such acts of spoliation)- only furthering and contributing to the litigious character of the art world. As I have previously said, all good-faith sellers of good character have never forbiddden me in past time from doing my requisite due diligence and research- all conducted at the instruction of the buyer, for whom I dutifully serve as 'agent'. Also as previously stated we have offered on endless occasions to return the work from safe-keeping (D&M) to Wachter's counsel with our offer consistently being declined, or our unwaivering offer to buy out Wachter's interest with no reply. This is baffling and untoward conduct from opposition counsel that I have never seen before, and certainly confusing enough to altogether befuddle my attorneys and colleagues in the art community. I also add that since the inception of Wachter's action (June 2008), countered with our consistent initiatives to have Wachter's lawyers discontinue the action (with or without prejudice) so as to sell the work, were met by Wachter's counsel with no reply whatsoever, despite our clear indication that the art markets, as well as the financial and credit markets were collapsing meteorically. In the meantime the Mei Moses art index indicates that the value of the international art markets has declined some 45% to date from our first entreaty to her lawyers (just 32% since March 2009). This inaction of her lawyers alone is grounds for censure, as they have only compounded the misery-index of our collective predicament and are accomplices in the furtherance and compounding of their own client's alleged damages. The invocation of the doctrine of laches is appropriate : Vigilantibus non dormientibus oequitas subvenit! An affirmative defense, this prejudicial delay to any proposed resolution clearly underscores the malicious character of the action, and lends itself to legitimate criticism as a frivolous suit which ought be summarily dismissed. See Solow v Nine West Group, 2001 WL 736794, *3 (SDNY June 29 2001); Simons v USA 452 F 2d 1110, 1116 (2nd Cir. 1971) (affirming Rule 12 (b) (6) dismissed based on laches where papers "reveal no reason for the inordinate and prejudicial delay".
It should be noted that a complaint will soon be lodged against opposition counsel Bernstein, McInnis and Bileris for egregious conduct by these offices with the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the NYS Bar Association.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)