"The suit is the third filed by an art collector involving a painting sold by the gallery, which closed last year."

Another Knoedler lawsuit.

"The Pennsylvania courts ruled repeatedly that private interests like the Friends have no standing to challenge the administration of a trust."

"Whatever the fallout from Camp’s statements, it seems hard to imagine that this development would alter any court’s analysis of the standing question that it has addressed on so many occasions."

More on the lack of financial problems at the Barnes

So I went back and looked at Judge Ott's opinion -- his first one, from January 2004 -- to see what it had to say about the Barnes's financial condition at the time.  The bottom line:  "What has been established beyond peradventure is that The Foundation's finances have reached a critical point."

More specifically, here's how he summarized the evidence:

• The world tour of works from the collection -- a world tour I'm sure most of today's hand-wringers bitterly opposed -- in the mid-1990s generated about $16 million.
• Half of those proceeds were used for renovations.
• The other half was placed in a restricted account for capital improvements.  About $4 million remained in that restricted account.
• Regarding assets available for operating expenses, there was $9.5 at the end of the 1980s.  That had fallen to $6.6 million by the end of 1997, $2.4 million by the end of 1998, and $1.6 million by the end of 1999.
• "The Foundation had been operating in the red over the past decade."
• Pew, Lenfest, and the Annenberg Foundation had provided $3.1 million in bridge financing to cover immediate operating expenses.  "In essence, the Foundation is covering its costs of operation at present only because of the bridge financing from Pew and Lenfest."
• The Foundation retained Deloitte and Touche "to conduct a financial analysis of three different operating scenarios at The Foundation," including one that continues "the education programs and public visitation schedule as they now stand."  "All three were projected to result in deficits."
• "The Board rejected the idea of filing for bankruptcy."
• "Lower Merion Township" -- or, as I believe they have come to be known over the last few years, The Friends of The Barnes -- "certainly bears some of the responsibility for the financial crisis.  The Foundation's attempt to raise revenues by increased public access to the gallery was met with hostility, bordering on hysteria, from some of the owners of the adjacent houses.  The township reacted to the situation by imposing a series of administrative regulations that have put a stranglehold on the Foundation's admissions policy."  Hey, that's what Friends are for.

But never mind all that.  The important thing is that a former Barnes official wrote a blog post that said they weren't bankrupt at the time.

Apparently it's a thing now to deny that financial problems led to the Barnes move (UPDATED)

For example.  Apparently the Friends of the Barnes have filed yet another petition to reopen the case on these grounds.

I thought it was always clear that the Barnes was in financial trouble.  The New York Times story announcing the proposed move, back in 2002, began:  "The financially beleaguered Barnes Foundation filed court papers today asking for permission to move ...."

John Anderson's Art Held Hostage, on p. 218: "Relatively small though the numbers were, the Barnes was, nevertheless, broke."

Most importantly, Judge Ott's 2004 opinion held that the Barnes "was on the brink of financial collapse."

So:  financially beleaguered, broke, on the brink of financial collapse ... but not yet technically bankrupt so stop the presses.  Or something.

UPDATE:  Lee Rosenbaum ("second to none in [her] strong belief that the Barnes should have remained in Merion"):  "[S]uggesting that the Barnes was not fiscally moribund at the time of the court hearings is as much a distortion of history as recent claims that founder Albert Barnes would have been pleased with the new Philadelphia facility."

"The way it was stolen was unusual. So was the way it was returned."

The Dali drawing stolen from Adam Lindemann's new gallery last week has been "mysteriously returned" -- by Express Mail, from Europe.  Turbo Paul says: "Publicity stunt which will be exposed shortly."

"What is it about Pablo Picasso that attracts vandals?"

Eric Felten explores.

And We're Back

Seems that while I was away Park West Galleries was involved in another lawsuit.  This one involved the Muhammad Ali Center, and quickly settled.  According to CBS News, "in recent years, Park West has been the target of 18 federal lawsuits in six states, each alleging fraud by the Michigan art dealer."

Gone Fishing

Back next week.

Christie's-Weiss Settlement

We learn from Carol Vogel's Inside Art column this week that the 2009 lawsuit by a family trust led by collector George A. Weiss against Christie’s, claiming the auction house had reneged on a $40 million guarantee, was settled.  "While nobody will reveal the details of Christie’s settlement with Mr. Weiss’s family trust — citing confidentiality agreements — some experts with knowledge of the lawsuit said they believe that Christie’s ended up giving the trust a figure close to the $40 million it was after."

"Cops were hunting for a slight, balding man who posed as a customer"

A Dali painting was stolen from the walls of Adam Lindemann's new gallery.

Priorities

I'm a little behind on this story, but it seems that, "struggling with continuing deficits," the Corcoran is thinking of selling its building, "which has housed the gallery since 1897," and relocating.

The Deaccession Police are pleased to hear that "the museum is not, has not, and will not consider deaccessioning works to plug its budget hole."

That's the really important thing, and is a great relief.  We know the Corcoran would never, ever dream of selling 10 paintings from its permanent collection at a public auction including "John Ellery," an 1810 work by Gilbert Stuart, the master portrait artist, and "The Return From the Tournament" an 1841 landscape by Thomas Cole, a founder of the movement called the Hudson River School.

No, those works are held in the public trust, to be accessible to present and future generations, and so can never be sold.  It's repulsive to even consider the possibility.  Those works can never be disposed of.  That would be to give in to the monetization monster.

Speaking of which, just to be clear:  you "monetize" work whether you use the proceeds to buy more art or to keep from having to sell your home since 1897. The only difference is what you do with the proceeds of the monetization.  But it's simply not the case that in one situation you are "monetizing" work and the other you're not.

"As spectacular sums flow through the art market and an expert verdict can make or destroy a fortune, several high-profile legal cases have pushed scholars to censor themselves for fear of becoming entangled in lawsuits."

Patricia Cohen, on the front page of today's New York Times:  In Art, Freedom of Expression Doesn't Extend to 'Is It Real?'

As she notes, the Warhol Foundation the Lichtenstein Foundation, and the Noguchi Museum "have all stopped authenticating works to avoid litigation." 

"[N]o one heading out to purchase an ethnographic photograph by Mr. Cariou (or anyone else) was going to be diverted by the Prince show at Gagosian. "

"And that should be the answer to the legal question. Since Mr. Prince caused no economic injury to Mr. Cariou, ... Mr. Prince should not be required to turn over his profits (or works)."

"We conclude that the First Amendment interests in artistic expression so clearly outweigh whatever consumer confusion that might exist ..."

"... on these facts that we must necessarily conclude that there has been no violation of the Lanham Act with respect to the paintings, prints, and calendars."

Big win for sports artist Daniel Moore on appeal.  Rebecca Tushnet comments here.  Birmingham News story here.  I predicted a two-touchdown victory for Moore when this all got started five-plus years ago.

"Questioning the Charitable Contribution Deduction"

The Nonprofit Law Prof Blog spots a trend.

You gotta admire the chutzpah

Some hilarious acts of spin going on regarding the latest ruling in the California resale royalty lawsuit.

Here's the story.  Last month a federal district court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the statute was unconstitutional.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the ruling pending their appeal.  This week, that motion was denied -- yet this is somehow being reported in the press as a victory for plaintiffs.

You see, it was a clever act of litigation jujitsu:  the plaintiffs "cleverly asked the court to stay the invalidation of the law—of course, they believed that the ruling had done no such thing, but they wanted to get the judge to state that."  Ahh, the old reverse psychology trick.  Well played, plaintiffs' counsel.  Well played.

Look, this is complete nonsense.  It was not "a victory cloaked in the language of defeat," and it did not "narrow[] the previous decision" in the case.  All it was was a tautological statement that a single district court decision is not binding on anyone other than the parties to the case, so there is nothing to stay.  State officials remain free to enforce the statute, and other plaintiffs are free to bring suit under it.  That's not in any way specific to this ruling.  That's just a fact about district court decisions generally.  There was no "victory" here, backhanded or otherwise.

Tell me again about the public trust ("quiet move" edition)

Laura Gilbert reports that "[i]n a quiet move, the Met has consigned a dozen Old Master paintings -- including some by major artists -- to Christie's for auction on June 6."

Maybe if you do it quietly, then those works are released from being held in the public trust, to be accessible to present and future generations.

Shhhhhhh . . .

"For most, attention will gradually shift back to what matters—the magnificent collection."

András Szántó in The Art Newspaper:  "[T]he new Barnes will serve as a reminder that it is possible to pay tribute to the past without surrendering to it."

Remember, they had no axe to grind

The makers of "The Art of the Steal" won't even visit the new Barnes -- "we do not foresee ourselves visiting the McBarnes."

It's not the first time they've used that phrase, and I think it's telling.  The reason people don't like McDonald's is they think the food isn't very good, it's unhealthy, etc.

In the new Barnes building, the same food is being served, in essentially the same dining room, with the same service.  It's as if a bunch of charitable foundations got together and put up the money to make Per Se available to the masses -- same food, same space, and so on, only offered to a wider audience.  I suppose there would still be some bellyachers who complain about an "Exit" sign or something.

"When did judges become the ultimate arbiters of art?"

Eric Felten in the Wall Street Journal:  Is Is Art? Increasingly, Nowadays, That's a Judicial Decision.