October 4 - 6, 2000
CONTENTS:
- Fortsons won't take more pay; Couple act to spare Kimbell's reputation
- Introduction/Invisble Ink
- flash photography in museums (Tom Dixon)
- Assaults on Public Institutions (Stevan Layne)
- Re: Invisible Ink (Terrence Quinlan)
- Invisble Ink (Mike Kiger)
- Decorative arts flagship seeks captain (The Victoria & Albert Museum)
- Sotheby's close to deal with US Justice Department
- Christie's Ordered to Answer in Antitrust Suit
- Conference discusses return of Jewish art stolen by Nazis (Lithuania's parliament voted to turn over 370 torahs)
- Former Sotheby's Chief May Plead Guilty
- Stolen Objects
- Re: Invisible Ink
- Russia, U.S. in Deal on Nazi-Looted Art
- Art and the ayatollahs
- British Museum Agrees on Ransom
- Re: Invisible Ink (Steve Keller)
- In Plea, Sotheby's Ex-Chief Points to Her Superior
- Judge defers action on Sotheby's guilty plea
Fortsons won't take more pay; Couple act to spare Kimbell's reputation
By Janet Kutner / The Dallas Morning News
Kimbell Art Foundation officers Kay and Ben Fortson will no longer be compensated for their work on behalf of the Kimbell Art Museum, Mrs. Fortson said Monday. The Fortsons came under fire in August when it was discovered they were being paid $500,000 a year for services generally regarded as voluntary. "After careful consideration, we have decided that it is no longer in the best interest of the Kimbell Art Foundation and the Kimbell Art Museum for Ben and me to receive compensation for the work we perform for the foundation and the museum," said Mrs. Fortson, niece of museum founder Kay Kimbell. She serves as president and chief executive officer of the foundation that supports the internationally renowned museum. Her husband is vice president and chief investment officer. Compensation started in 1998 when non-family members of the eight-person foundation board awarded them a total of $1.5 million for services rendered since 1996.
"This is a philosophical debate about whether private foundations or museums should or should not compensate officers for their services, and we do not wish to endanger the well-deserved reputation of the Kimbell Art Museum by continuing the debate," Mrs. Fortson said.
"I think this is great for the Kimbell," said Peter Marzio, director of the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston and former president of the Association of American Museum Directors. "It was the right thing to do, because what this does is clarify the distinction between staff and trustees. And that's critical if the nonprofit system is going to work as it was intended to." Noting the Kimbell's role as "one of America's finest art institutions," Mrs. Fortson voiced her conviction that it will continue to flourish under the leadership of the board and director Timothy Potts.
(Dallas morning News)
From: "MKiger" missinginc@email.msn.com
Subject: Introduction/Invisble Ink
List:
I have been a member of the list for several months and have not introduced myself.
My name is Mike Kiger and my company's name is Missing Inc.. I have been a private investigator in the Portland, Oregon area for Eighteen years. My company works in the following areas: Accident Reconstruction, Art Recovery, Asset Researching, Adoptions, Background Investigations, Criminal Defense, Environmental Liability, Heirs, Intellectual Property, Judgements and Reunions. I have been fortunate enough to have been given information on art recovery from Mr. Bob Volpe who I believe is also a member of this list.
My company is currently marketing an invisble ink to art gallerys, art collectors, art appraisers and museums.This ink can be used to mark canvas, metal, stone and wood. This ink will also withstand the acid baths that are sometime used to clean pieces. I would be willing answer any questions and I look forward to talking to many of you.
Mike Kiger
Missing Inc. P.O. Box 1002
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
V: 503-227-5057 F: 503-227-5057
missinginc@email.msn.com
mkiger@juno.com
From: Tom Dixon tom.dixon@ngv.vic.gov.au
To: "'securma@xs4all.nl'" securma@xs4all.nl
Subject: flash photography in museums
Date sent: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:21:42 +1000
Just a note on flash photography in museums. Flash photography was banned by many museums back in the days of flash bulbs because every once in a while, a scratched or cracked bulb would explode and shower white hots bits of burning magnesium out from the flash gun. This actually happened to me while I was a year 12 student photographing a football dinner for our school paper and glass and molten metal shot out of the flash gun onto the meals of several players, but no one was hurt. The damage to an ung With the advent of electronic flash, the danger of explosion is gone. Light damage is not a substantial issue as the duration of light generated from an electronic flash is less than 1/1000th second- even with a relatively high powered flash, the lux hours of exposure of thousands of flashes would be less than a few minutes of normal museum lighting exposure. Also, no heating of the work occurs.
Flash photography is therefore controlled by many museums for reasons other than the deterioration of the works of art. These include the disturbance of other visitors and copyright. If our visitors want a high quality reproduction of works of art where we own copyright or have an arrangement with the copyright holder, these available for sale in our book shop. And as we all know, making a clear distinction can be difficult- if we allow flash we may encounter someone with old fashion flashbulbs which we d We ban tripods and other camera supports, both for the reason of inconvenience and distraction of other visitors and the "high quality photo" reason above. There are also implications of the carrying of this type of equipment around the galleries and the potential for accidental impact of a work on display. Video flood lights are also banned because they can easily heat works, impact on other visitors, and can be a significant source of light deterioration of works of art.
This is all a little bit complex and a bother to explain to new staff and visitors. However, when we do ban something as common as flash cameras, it is important we have the story straight so we ourselves understand why and then have a better chance of explaining it to our visitors.
In our case, members of the press and "special visitors" can be exempted from the ban, but are usually accompanied by a uniformed staff member to make it clear to other visitors they are acting in accordance with our wishes.
Thomas Dixon
Chief Conservator
National Gallery of Victoria
Melbourne Australia
From: LayneCnslt@cs.com
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:56:46 EDT
Subject: Assaults on Public Institutions
On August 7, 2000, a pipe bomb was found in a book drop at the Ross-University Hills branch of the Denver Public Library. A janitor found it sticking out of the book drop, and fresh graffiti was noticed on the sidewalk in front of the library. The bomb was removed by police, and the library did not close. On Thursday, September 28, 2000, another pipe bomb was found near the book drop of the Ross-Cherry Creek branch. An employee noticed a cord across the steps and thought the janitor blocked them off for cleaning. The branch was closed for the day. On Monday, police arrested 42 year old Valerie Giorella of Denver who is being held without bail on suspicion of possessing explosives and incendiary devices. Police have not released information on what led them to Giorella or on a motive.
Special sessions at the IFCPP Annual Conference will deal with staff awareness in the discovery of explosive devices, safe removal, evacuation, and other related issues. These recent incidents in Denver are a few of those reported nationally. If you are aware of similar incidents, please pass them along so that we may inform our subscribers. Stay alert...and stay safe! -
STEVE LAYNE
Stevan P. Layne, CPP, CIPM
Layne Consultants International
IFCPP - Founding Director
Steve@IFCPP.com
From: Terrence Quinlan quinlat@algonquincollege.com
Organization: Algonquin College
Subject: Re: Invisible Ink
Mike Kiger wrote:
My company is currently marketing an invisible ink to art galleries,
art collectors, art appraisers and museums.This ink can be used to
mark canvas, metal, stone and wood. This ink will also withstand the
acid baths that are sometime used to clean pieces. I would be willing
answer any questions and I look forward to talking to many of you.
I am interested in obtaining additional data regarding Mr. Kiger's product "invisible ink". Specifically, is it removable? What are the aging properties? What is its composition? Has anybody on this listserv used the substance? What are its working properties?
The application of any substance should be carefully examined to determine if the object will suffer any adverse side effects. You should also question the introduction of "permanent" materials in terms of their impact on the "value" of the piece. Do contributors to this group have any security issues that would warrant the application of a permanent substance to an object that couldn't be reduced or eliminated by other means?
Terrence Quinlan
From: "MKiger" missinginc@email.msn.com
Subject: Invisble Ink
List:
I just wanted to thank everyone for the warm response to my posting on our invisble ink product.
I was ask by several people as to who is currnetly using our product. Our product is currnetly being used by Warner Brothers, Hanna-Barbera and renowned artist Mr. Thomas Kinkade. Our product was also used to mark all merchandise sold at the recnet Sydney Summer Olympics.
Mike Kiger
Missing Inc. P.O. Box 1002
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
V: 503-227-5057 F: 503-227-5057
missinginc@email.msn.com
mkiger@juno.com
Decorative arts flagship seeks captain
The consensus is that one of the world's greatest museums has lost its way. A strong leader who believes in its contents and curators is needed
By Martin Bailey
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/museums/museums.asp
LONDON. This month the trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) will be drawing up a shortlist of candidates to replace its director, Dr Alan Borg, who has lost the confidence of his trustees. Earlier this year it was decided not to renew his contract, which was due to expire this month, but it then became clear that it would be difficult to appoint a replacement so quickly. Dr Borg's position has therefore been extended until he reaches sixty, in January 2002. The differences between the chairman of the trustees, Paula Ridley, and the director have come at a difficult moment for the V&A. Visitor numbers fell again last year, to 946,000, the lowest figure for a decade. Although work is proceeding well on the British Galleries, fundraising has proved much more of a challenge, and up to £8 million may have to be "raided" from the museum's budget and funds.
Further money for the Spiral building is proving just as elusive, and it now appears increasingly unlikely that it will ever be built. More fundamentally, there is a feeling among some of the trustees that the V&A "doesn't know where it is going". Having a director and chairman at odds only adds to the problems, and decisions on many key issues are now being postponed.
There is a brighter side. The recent "Art Nouveau" exhibition was a spectacular success, both at a scholarly level and with the public (it attracted 231,000 visitors, making it the V&A's most successful show for a decade). Three more potential blockbusters are now under preparation--"The Victorians" (April-July 2001), "Art Deco" (Spring 2002) and "Late Gothic Art in England" (October 2002-January 2003). The new British Galleries, opening in November 2001, will represent the biggest redisplay ever undertaken at the museum. Other galleries have recently opened, such as those for photography and silver. These are all among Dr Borg's achievements.
Everyone agrees that the V&A is an extremely complex institution to run. Its nineteenth-century building is labyrinthine, it is among the world's largest art museums (in size probably only exceeded by the British Museum, the Louvre, the Hermitage and the Metropolitan), its collections are extremely diverse (ranging from South East Asian art to Victorian sculpture casts), and decorative art never seems to have the popular appeal that it deserves. The director's post has become regarded as something of a poisoned chalice, with Dr Borg's two predecessors having both resigned.
Tensions at the top
Although both sides are being extremely discreet, behind the polite façade there are clearly serious differences between the director and the trustees. Dr Borg resents the way in which the trustees have criticised his leadership and intervened, while Mrs Ridley and her trustees are concerned at how the museum is being run. So what went wrong?
In 1998, three years into Dr Borg's directorship, the then chairman of the trustees, former Cabinet Secretary Lord Armstrong, was due to retire after his ten-year stint. It then proved extremely difficult for the museum and the government to agree upon a successor. Eventually a name suggested by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) was accepted: Paula Ridley, chairman of the Liverpool Housing Action Trust and a trustee of the Tate Gallery and National Gallery.
After taking over in October 1998, Mrs Ridley quickly made her mark, speaking her mind and pushing for the museum to become much more "accessible", with a clearer sense of direction. When she took over, she made trustee meetings monthly, rather than bi-monthly, so that they could keep a closer watch on what was happening. Mrs Ridley was also keen on giving the V&A a higher public profile. As she explained to The Art Newspaper last month: "One of the things which has struck me is how many marvellous things go on at the V&A which nobody knows about."
Dr Borg and other senior museum staff regarded the new chairman as too interventionist, and tensions quickly developed. Mrs Ridley denies that she has meddled: "The role of the trustees is to discuss policy and strategy with the director, not to run the museum on a day-to-day basis. What I think is extremely important is that the trustees are properly furnished with information about all the decisions they have to take." Nevertheless, if the V&A has problems, they are arguably issues for which both the director and the trustees should take a share of the responsibility. In the present situation there is a tendency for each side to the blame the other.
Within months of her arrival, Mrs Ridley was already thinking of trying to bring in a new director and last autumn the trustees provisionally decided against renewing Dr Borg's contract. The feeling was that they wanted to bring in a fresh face to take the museum into the twenty-first century.
The job description
On 31 March the V&A issued a statement revealing that Dr Borg's contract was to be extended for sixteen months and the trustees would be starting their search for a successor. Mrs Ridley was quoted as saying the announcement was being made "to avoid undue speculation". There were no words of praise for Dr Borg's achievements, only the comment that the extension of his contract would "ensure the continuity the trustees and the museum will need at this critical time, during which we need to complete the British Galleries and progress the Spiral." Rather than dampening speculation, the terse statement had the reverse effect. Headhunters GKR were brought in to find a successor, and the post was advertised in June at "up to £100,000" with a performance-related bonus. The main requirements were laid down: "Candidates must be outstanding leaders in their field, with the ability to embrace change, and possess an understanding of the creative opportunities offered by new technology. Strong intellect, energy and inspiration will be needed. Experience of developing relationships with the private sector is required as is the capacity to lead fundraising for major capital projects". Noticeably missing is any mention of museum experience or scholarship, two qualities which have usually been sought in the past. Advertisements were placed in The Economist and The Financial Times, but not in the specialist art or museum press.
A shortlist is now being drawn up and interviews may well take place next month, with a possible decision by Christmas or else early in the new year. The successful candidate is likely to have to give three months' notice, and may therefore not be available until the spring. Dr Borg might retire once the new candidate is available.
In the interim, important decisions are being delayed. Proposed organisational changes inside the museum involving the creation of the posts of collections director and collections management director have been put on hold. Much more seriously, fundraising for both the British Galleries and the Spiral have become very difficult. This is compounding the damage that occurred last time round, when the previous director left. This occurred in 1995, just after the Lottery had come on stream: Mrs Esteve-Coll had not really appreciated the potential of the Lottery and by the time the incoming Dr Borg was able to submit an application for the British Galleries, others such as the Tate Gallery had got in earlier. When the V&A's application was eventually considered, Lottery money was tighter and awards were smaller.
In addition to the names already mentioned in the press, The Art Newspaper has also learned that two senior figures from museums in Germany and the Netherlands have applied. At one point it looked as if Dr Simon Thurley of the Museum of London might have been interested, but he has denied that he put in an application. In the end, there appear to be no internal V&A candidates, although several staff did seriously consider applying. Most of the candidates whose names have emerged are from museums, but the trustees are also likely to consider arts administrators with wider experience. Fortunately, it now seems unlikely that they will go for a business figures, much to the relief of the V&A curatorial staff.
The Spiral Contrary to press speculation, the new director may not be required to be a Spiral-enthusiast, although the trustees are still very keen. When the dramatic Daniel Libeskind-designed orientation building was first proposed in 1996, it seemed as if the project might get 50% funding from the Lottery, but it is now clear that it would be lucky if it eventually gets 10% of the costs. Of the £80 million needed, the considerable sum of £30 million has been promised by anonymous donors. Most of the £1.5 million given by the Headley Trust (Sir Timothy and Lady Sainsbury) has already been spent on design work. There is a growing feeling that it may now have become too difficult to raise the additional £50 million, and the new director will have to make a decision on whether to push forward or drop the Spiral.
The British Galleries The museum originally applied to the Heritage Lottery Fund for 75% of the costs, but the application took a considerable time to evaluate and by the time the award was eventually made in July 1998 it covered only 50%-£16 million towards the £31 million project. So far the museum has raised £7 million, leaving £8 million to find from its own resources. Work on the galleries is proceeding on schedule for opening in November 2001. Visitor numbers Last year visitors numbered 946,000 visitors (falling below those of the smaller National Portrait Gallery). Mrs Ridley admits that the figure is "disturbing", and she finds it difficult to explain what went wrong. The "Arts of the Sikh Kingdoms" exhibition (119,000 visitors) had a fairly limited appeal, but it did bring in many first-time Asian visitors, and "A Grand Design" (43,000) failed to attract visitors because it comprised items from the permanent collection. Income from admission charges fell from £2.5 million in 1998-99 to just £1.8 million last year. Dr Borg admits that attracting more visitors is a challenge: "Decorative arts museums are difficult. We are also competing against more and more visitor attractions. Perhaps what the V&A had not done well enough is to cultivate new audiences." This year's results will be helped by the success of "Art Nouveau", although the museum will have been hit by the opening of Tate Modern and other millennium projects.
Admission charges Here there are marked "philosophical" differences between the current director and his chairman. Dr Borg, who encouraged the trustees to make voluntary charges compulsory in 1996, says he "honestly believes that charging doesn't make much difference to visitor figures". Although he would prefer the proposed "quids in" system (£1 adult admission with additional DCMS grant in aid), we "do require assurances from government that we will be properly compensated" - and that the museum will continue to be able to reclaim Value Added Tax. Mrs Ridley says she "personally believes that introducing charges was the biggest political (with a small "p") mistake that the V&A has made. It lost us a lot of the high ground." Decisions on charges cannot wait for the appointment of a new director. The V&A is currently involved in negotiations with DCMS over "quids in", and if these fail then the adult admission charge may have to be increased from £5 to £6, a prospect which the trustees admit has "horrified" them.
The outside museums The three outside museums run by the V&A all pose very different problems. The Bethnal Green National Museum of Childhood has been a source of concern to Mrs Ridley, who says it seems to have been "set up by someone who didn't know anything about children". But she is happy with the appointment last June of a new Bethnal Green director, Diane Lees, and is hoping for changes. The Theatre Museum in Covent Garden is "a cuckoo in the nest, not an obvious fit with the V&A", and Mrs Ridley would be happy for it to be established as an independent trust, a solution supported by Theatre Museum head, Margaret Benton. Consultants are currently examining the options, but it would be necessary to raise funds. Apsley House now looks set to be taken away from V&A administration, because the Wellington family are unhappy with the way it has been run, and earlier this year DCMS commissioned a study to examine its future. Mrs Ridley says she would be very sad if it was hived off: "I am not convinced that an independent trust could fund the proper running of Apsley House."
Contemporary The V&A has wanted to become more involved in contemporary design, but Mrs Ridley believes that much more needs to be done. "In the past few years it has not been very successful, and we should raise the contemporary profile. It not only represents a central purpose for the museum, but it also brings in a totally new audience."
Masterplan Although not formally announced, the V&A has commissioned DEGW to prepare a masterplan on how make best use of its complex building. One of the ideas is to turn the galleries around the Pirelli Garden into public facilities, with a bookshop and café. The museum also desperately needs a greater area of flexible space for temporary exhibitions and displays. The future Although there is a general feeling of concern among the trustees, they have not yet formulated the solutions, and ideas will be sought from the new director. "We do not have a blueprint for the twenty-first century," explained Mrs Ridley.
Considered by the headhunters
Stephen Bayley Former chief executive of the Design Museum and design guru. Shortly after the headhunters recently approached him, he published an outspokenly critical account of the V&A in the Independent, which he described as his "professional suicide note".
Dr Christopher Brown Director of the Ashmoleon Museum since 1998. He has been approached, but has not yet formally applied.
Timothy Clifford Director of the National Galleries of Scotland since 1984. Formerly director of Manchester City Art Galleries and before that he was at the British Museum (prints and drawings) and at the V&A from 1972-76 (ceramics). He applied for the V&A directorship in 1995, but lost to Dr Borg.
David Fleming Director of Tyne and Wear Museums since 1991. He has not yet formally applied, but might be interested if the trustees opt for radical changes to modernise and open the museum.
Mark Jones Director of the National Museums of Scotland since 1992. He has not yet confirmed his interest.
Dr Charles Saumarez Smith Director of the National Portrait Gallery since 1994. His greatest success has been the Ondaatje Wing, which opened in May. He was earlier at the V&A, serving as head of research (1990-94).
Paul Thomson Director of the Design Museum since 1992. He has not formally applied, but might become a candidate.
Dr Simon Thurley Director of the Museum of London since 1997. He has denied that he has applied
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/museums/museums.asp
Sotheby's close to deal with US Justice Department
By Andrew Cave, New York Business Correspondent
SOTHEBY'S is close to ending the price-fixing scandal that shocked the auction world by paying a fine to settle criminal allegations. The deal, said to be under negotiation with American authorities, would be in addition to the £175 million payment Sotheby's agreed last month to settle a civil action with art investors. They had threatened to take it to court over allegations that it had collaborated with Christie's to set identical commissions for buyers and sellers.
Sotheby's said last week that it was "optimistic" that a settlement could be reached. Yesterday, Matthew Weigman, a spokesman, said: "We are in negotiations with the US Department of Justice. Those negotiations are continuing." He declined to comment on reports that the fine could be up to £35 million. In last month's civil settlement, Christie's agreed to pay £175 million to settle the allegations. However, it might not cover claims by buyers outside America. The civil settlement also does not affect potential criminal proceedings against Sotheby's and its executives.
Diana Brooks, who resigned as Sotheby's chief executive over the affair, may face allegations of conspiring to violate America's anti-trust laws. Alfred Taubman, 75, of Michigan, who bought Sotheby's in 1983, may also face charges. He resigned as chairman at the same time as Mrs Brooks. He agreed to pay £107 million of the civil settlement and provide £20 million to shareholders who filed a separate securities fraud claim.
(Daily Telegraph, London)
Christie's Ordered to Answer in Antitrust Suit
By CAROL VOGEL and RALPH BLUMENTHAL (NYT)
The federal judge hearing a civil antitrust lawsuit against Sotheby's and Christie's yesterday questioned Christie's good faith in refusing to answer questions posed by one of the defendants and ordered the auction house to respond or face possible sanctions.
The judge, Lewis A. Kaplan of Federal District Court in Manhattan, ruled that Christie's had to respond "fully and completely" by Oct. 14 to the questions posed by lawyers for A. Alfred Taubman, a former chairman of Sotheby's. Judge Kaplan said, "There is genuine ground to suspect Christie's good faith here."
Shepard Goldfein, a lawyer with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, representing Christie's, said he had no comment. John Scanlon, a spokesman for Mr. Taubman, said, "We're delighted with the judge's decision, and beyond that, there's really nothing else to say." Mr. Taubman agreed last month to pay $186 million of a $512 million settlement that Sotheby's and Christie's together agreed to pay to about 120,000 buyers and sellers to resolve accusations that the auction houses had cheated them by fixing prices and other collusive practices going back years. But two cases brought abroad by auction house customers were not covered by the settlement. They were the subject of yesterday's court ruling.
In those cases, lawyers defending Mr. Taubman sought explanations from Christie's about documents turned over by a former chief executive of Christie's, Christopher M. Davidge.
The documents, which Judge Kaplan said "apparently are important evidence of the alleged conspiracy," and which have been described as records of secret meetings between top executives of both auction houses, were given to Christie's late last year by Mr. Davidge as part of his departure settlement with the company. Christie's then gave them to the Justice Department as part of a deal for conditional amnesty from criminal prosecution. The criminal investigsation is pending.
In the overseas lawsuits, Mr. Taubman's lawyers have been pressing Christie's for answers about the Davidge documents, including the authors and the meanings of certain abbreviations and unclear references to unnamed people. But Christie's has taken the position, the judge said, that it cannot provide the information because Mr. Davidge is the one who knows and Christie's does not control him.
The judge said, however, that with Christie's having agreed to pay Mr. Davidge about $7.5 million contingent on his cooperation with the company - and with about $3 million of the amount still unpaid - Christie's had ample means of gaining Mr. Davidge's cooperation.
And so, Judge kaplan said, he was ordering Christie's to respond to Mr. Taubman. If the company did not, he said, the court would consider what efforts Christie's had made to secure Mr. Davidge's cooperation, and if it failed, "whether the imposition of sanctions is appropriate and, if so, what those sanctions should be."
Conference discusses return of Jewish art stolen by Nazis
VILNIUS, Lithuania (AP) -- Lithuania's parliament voted to turn over 370 torahs to Jewish groups in a gesture that coincided with the start of a global conference seeking the return of Jewish artwork looted by the Nazis. The parliament voted Tuesday to hand over the Jewish scrolls, which are now kept in a state library, to Jewish groups and synagogues within the country. European, Israeli and American art experts and officials began meeting Tuesday to discuss how to get pilfered Jewish art back into the hands of its rightful heirs. The four-day forum was expected to draft plans for an international database that could be used by Holocaust survivors and relatives to search for stolen Jewish art. The register could eventually include 600,000 pieces of art, allowing heirs to track specific works and galleries to see if they possess stolen objects, said organizer Emanuelis Zingeris, a Lithuanian member of parliament. Debating where art should go
The more than 300 delegates also were expected to debate whether Jewish art stolen from national museums in Nazi-occupied Europe should be returned to the countries of origin or, as many Jewish groups have argued, to Israel. Deputy Treasury Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat, the Clinton administration's point man on Nazi-era compensation matters, was leading the American delegation. The Vilnius meeting, organized by the human rights body, the Council of Europe, follows similar conferences devoted to lost Jewish assets, including one in Washington two years ago and in London in 1997. Zingeris said the Lithuanian capital, a prewar hub of Jewish culture and learning, was an ideal place to address these issues. Nearly all the city's 60,000 Jews were killed during the 1941-1944 Nazi occupation, as were another 180,000 Jews elsewhere in Lithuania. "Restoring a complete view of the prewar European Jewish cultural legacy would be the best monument to the victims of the Holocaust," Zingeris said. Conference site questioned
But some Jewish groups questioned the appropriateness of the venue, arguing that Lithuania has not adequately acknowledged the role some of its countrymen played in the extermination of Jews. After Lithuania regained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, it vowed to prosecute those who took part in the massacres. But after almost 10 years, not a single alleged Nazi has been convicted. Efraim Zuroff, of the Nazi-hunting Simon Wiesenthal Center, said in a statement Tuesday that conference delegates should take the opportunity to pressure Lithuania for more diligent prosecution of alleged Lithuanian Nazis. "Far too little has been done by the Lithuanian authorities who have heretofore excelled in finding innumerable excuses for their failure to take judicial action," he said in a statement released from his office in Jerusalem.
Former Sotheby's Chief May Plead Guilty
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL and CAROL VOGEL
Diana D. Brooks is facing a possible prison term and a large fine.
Related Articles
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/05/business/05AUCT.html
Christie's Ordered to Answer in Antitrust Suit (Oct. 4, 2000) Art Auction
Houses Agree to Pay $512 Million in Price-Fixing Case (Sept. 23, 2000)
Auction Case Prosecutors Are Pressed by Deadline (June 12, 2000) Auction
Houses Disclose Secret Data (May 13, 2000) Audio AP Business Report, Updated Twice Each Hour
After a three-year investigation into the multibillion-dollar auction business, Diana D. Brooks, the former president and chief executive of Sotheby's, has agreed to plead guilty today to conspiring to violate antitrust laws in collusion with Sotheby's archrival, Christie's, people close to Ms. Brooks and the government said yesterday.
The felony plea would leave Ms. Brooks, 50, once seen as the most powerful woman in the art world, facing a possible three-year federal prison sentence and a large fine.
The hard-fought deal with the Justice Department sets the stage for a high-stakes courtroom drama, turning Ms. Brooks into a witness against her longtime boss, Sotheby's former chairman, A. Alfred Taubman, 75, the multimillionaire Detroit shopping center developer, people involved in the case said. Both resigned under fire in February.
In a related deal revealed yesterday, Sotheby's also agreed to plead guilty today to violations of antitrust law and pay a fine of $45 million - above a huge settlement two weeks ago in a civil case stemming from the same investigation.
People involved in the case confirmed the plea agreements after the case was listed on the federal court calendar for today.
The investigation centered on the issue of whether Sotheby's colluded with Christie's in a host of business practices, including fixing fees and commissions charged at auctions. In January, Christie's turned over documents and other evidence to the Justice Department, winning amnesty by, in effect, admitting collusion.
Ever since, the case has transfixed the rarefied, gossipy and money- driven worlds of art and auction, where every year $4 billion of art and antiques flow through the two houses.
As part of her agreement with the Justice Department, Ms. Brooks will provide details about the fixing of fees and other practices that may have stifled competition going back at least eight years. In particular, she will be asked to provide information under oath about Mr. Taubman.
John Scanlon, a spokesman for Mr. Taubman, declined to comment. Mr. Taubman, who bought Sotheby's in 1983, has previously denied wrongdoing. Ralph T. Giordano, chief of the federal antitrust office in New York, also declined to comment.
Stephen E. Kaufman, a lawyer for Ms. Brooks, said the case was on the calendar for today but declined to discuss the proceeding. A lawyer involved in the case said that under the arrangement, Ms. Brooks would waive indictment and admit to a single count in what is called an information - tantamount to an indictment - that is devised for the plea. Ms. Brooks will have to tell a judge in her own words what crime she committed and is now admitting to.
In Sotheby's coordinated but separate plea, the fine of $45 million will be spread out over five years, people close to the case said.
This fine comes on top of a $256 million payment Sotheby's agreed to pay to auction buyers and sellers last month in a settlement of a civil class- action lawsuit. Christie's also agreed to pay $256 million to customers but faces no federal criminal charges because it came forward first with evidence of collusion and won conditional amnesty.
Ms. Brooks's plea, aimed at building a full-blown prosecution of Mr. Taubman, whose fortune is put at more than $700 million, caps weeks of intensive talks between lawyers for Ms. Brooks and prosecutors for the Justice Department, people involved in the case said.
Matthew Weigman, a spokesman for Sotheby's, declined to comment on any aspect of the case.
The pleading before a federal judge, who will be selected by lottery, is set to take place at the Pearl Street courthouse in Manhattan after an appearance before a magistrate at 10 a.m. The judge could take the plea then and there but could reschedule it for the next day or another time.
Whether Ms. Brooks will serve time in prison will not be decided until her sentencing after her cooperation with the government. Her lawyers had sought a commitment from the Justice Department that it would ask the sentencing judge to spare her prison. But no agreement was reached, people close to the case said.
The offense she is set to plead guilty to, a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act's prohibition against conspiracies in restraint of trade, also gives the judge discretion in levying the fine. He could, in theory, choose the higher of three amounts: $350,000; or the illicit financial gain to her; or twice the loss by victims. Since the settlement in the civil case acknowledged claims of close to $500 million (less unspecified legal fees) a doubling of losses could technically mean a fine of close to $1 billion.
Ms. Brooks and her husband, Michael, a venture capitalist, have homes in Manhattan, Long Island and Florida, and have been financial benefactors of their alma mater, Yale. But their wealth has never been equated with that of Mr. Taubman and other superrich collectors. Her last salary at Sotheby's was $600,000 a year, which came to more than $1 million with bonuses.
The inquiry that led to today's pleas was based in large part on documents provided by a former chief executive of Christie's, Christopher M. Davidge, who resigned on Christmas Eve. As part of a $7.5 million departure settlement he got from Christie's, Mr. Davidge turned over to Christie's lawyers more than 100 pages of notes and other records said to document meetings and conversations he had with the chairman of Christie's, Sir Anthony Tennant, and counterparts at Sotheby's, Ms. Brooks and Mr. Taubman.
Christie's will receive conditional amnesty from prosecution as long as it continues to cooperate.
The Davidge documents, which were given to the lead lawyers, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, in the civil class-action antitrust case as part of the recently concluded settlement discussions, were put under seal by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of Federal District Court in Manhattan, who is presiding over the civil case. But the documents would presumably be presented as evidence in any trial of Mr. Taubman or other defendants.
Mr. Davidge could be called upon to testify; his financial settlement with Christie's and his amnesty from prosecution require him to cooperate with the investigation. Ms. Brooks is also likely to be called to testify about the documents.
Sir Anthony, who is based in England, has refused to comment as has his lawyer, Richard Taylor. People close to the case said it was doubtful that he could be extradited to the United States were he to be charged.
Mr. Taubman, clearly the target of the government's move to turn Ms. Brooks into a prosecution witness, has already incurred major financial losses. Of the $512 million civil settlement that Sotheby's and Christie's recently agreed to pay auction customers, in equal shares of $256 million, Mr. Taubman agreed to pay $156 million of Sotheby's portion. He also agreed to pay $30 million to settle a suit by Sotheby's stockholders who argued that their holdings were devalued by the company's wrongdoing. In return, Sotheby's agreed not to seek other financial redress from Mr. Taubman.
Of the remaining $100 million that Sotheby's must pay under the civil settlement, $50 million can be in the form of coupons to future sellers, so the company need only come up with $50 million cash. Christie's, which is privately held, must come up with the entire $256 million.
From: Neil Handley Handley_N@COLLEGE-OPTOMETRISTS.ORG
Subject: Stolen Objects
Has anyone any experience of 'publicising' (so-to-speak) the theft of objects from their collections (in our case three spyglasses and a pair of opera glasses which we had loaned to another venue)? Are there any shortcuts or cost-effective means of alerting international dealers etc.? I am aware of various trace magazines etc. but the cost of advertising in each might ultimately equal the value of any insurance money we received if the objects were never to be recovered.
Neil Handley BA, MA
Curator, British Optical Association Museum
The College of Optometrists,
42 Craven Street, London WC2N 5NG
Tel: 020 7839 6000 Fax: 020 7839 6800
e-mail: museum@college-optometrists.org
web-site: http://www.college-optometrists.org/college/museum
From: KlausZ@aol.com
Subject: Re: Invisible Ink
In a message dated 10/5/00 2:56:55 AM Central Daylight Time,
securma@xs4all.nl writes:
quinlat@algonquincollege.com
Hello;
Protecting art against fraud is one of our missions.
SECUTAG® is a color-coded micro particle (sizes 15-25µ, 25-32µ, 32-45µ) for authentication and identification of archeologic and art objects against counterfeit, theft, forgery, etc. No fake objects have any chance to be auctioned or sold anymore if authenticated with the owner's code combination - his 'fingerprint'.
The particles are sprayed or brushed on the substrate, on the canvas of pictures, over registration marks, etc. Our SECUTAG® Tracer-Fiber can be stitched into a woven product. Our products are not visible to the naked eye and do not alter the original.
The authentication process should be recorded with a video camera as follows: · Focus on the object and record any specifics or number; · Record the marking and focus on the spot the marking is applied; · Log the object into a register and focus on the registration number.
The simple use of a UV light (365 nm) will identify the color code by reflection and a pocket microscope (100x magnification) allows you to read the code sequence. Easy application of our SECUTAG® products, instant identification with inexpensive devices and cost-effective pricing make us very competitive.
In the case of change of ownership of an art object we recommend to authenticate the related documents with your customer code to avoid the transfer of stolen art with faked documents.
Detailed information, sample material and contacts to an Art Protection Service are available by contacting us:
MICOT CORPORATION
St. Paul, MN
Tel. 651 426 7662
http://www.micot.com
Russia, U.S. in Deal on Nazi-Looted Art
By John Acher
VILNIUS, Lithuania (Reuters) - The United States and Russia have reached a breakthrough accord on opening archives to help recover art looted by the Nazis during the Second World War, officials said Wednesday. The deal includes a seed fund of privately donated money to set up a U.S.-based foundation that will help identify displaced cultural assets in Russia as a first step to restoring them to their owners, officials said. ``It's a major, major step forward in opening up archives for Nazi-looted art,'' U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart Eizenstat told reporters at a conference on the restitution of Holocaust-era art. ``It may be the biggest step forward since the end of World War Two,'' said Eizenstat, who is the special representative of the U.S. president on Holocaust issues.
``(This) has the prospect of opening the greatest treasure trove of previously unidentified Nazi-looted art and of archives from Nazi Germany that has the possibility of showing the dimensions of the art stolen by Hitler's orders throughout Europe,'' he said.
Nations around the world began revisiting the issue of Holocaust restitution with a 1997 meeting on Nazi gold in London and a landmark 1998 Washington conference outlining the principles of the process. The October 3-5 Vilnius conference attended by representatives of 37 countries, the Council of Europe and 17 non-governmental bodies is the latest episode in the global effort to tackle the problem.
As part of the new deal, Christie's Auction House in the United States secured an initial $500,000 contribution from World Jewish Congress president Edgar Bronfman and Ronald Lauder, chairman of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, to create a register of displaced cultural assets in Russia. Access To Russian Archives Long Been Concern Access to Russian archives has long been a crucial concern of Jewish communities and other groups pressing for restitution of art and other property stolen by the Nazis from Holocaust victims.
The new agreement to press ahead with cataloguing displaced property in Russian museums followed Russian legislation in May establishing the legal right of victims of Nazism to claim assets removed to the Soviet Union at the end of World War Two.
Eizenstat praised that step by Moscow and said the new pilot project would help give Russia the resources needed to implement the principles of the Washington conference, which Russia has also embraced. The head of the Russian delegation, Viktor Petrakov, said the new fund would significantly speed up the process of identifying Nazi-looted property in Russia.
Representatives of Jewish organizations said Russian backing for the restitution process was a crucial step forward.
Charles Goldstein, legal counsel for the World Jewish Congress's commission for art recovery, said that only the Hungarian government was still dragging its feet on providing access to its records.
``They are fighting tooth and nail not to give in,'' he said, adding that his organization would continue to sue for recovery of property in Hungarian courts.
Art and the ayatollahs
Teheran Museum of Contemporary Art
Andy Warhol and Ayatollah Khomeini made uneasy bedfellows. So uneasy that a stunning collection of contemporary art, collected by the Shah of Iran's third wife, has remained hidden in Teheran for nearly 20 years. Julian West reports ON a hot afternoon in July 1994 an Iran Air jet screamed to a halt at Vienna airport. As the aircraft taxied towards the landing bay, an unmarked van drove on to the tarmac. Two men emerged from the van and watched as a large wooden crate was carefully manoeuvred out of the aircraft's hold. In turn, the small group of Iranians on board the plane descended to the tarmac and waited tensely as nine sealed boxes were unloaded from the van. Seals on both consignments were checked, the two groups exchanged brief pleasantries and, as the wooden crate was carried to the van, the boxes were hoisted into the aircraft. One of the art world's most spectacular deals had just taken place. Iran's Jackie Kennedy: Farah Diba has amassed an astonishing collection of art The secret exchange of Woman III, an abstract nude by Willem de Kooning, for the Shahnameh, a priceless Persian manuscript, in circumstances worthy of a Le Carré novel, both intrigued and divided the art world. For years Iran had tried and failed to lay its hands on the Shahnameh, an exquisitely illustrated manuscript based on the epic Persian poem, The King's Book of Kings, which left Persia 400 years ago.
Then, early in 1994, the chance came: Arthur J Houghton III, the son of the American multi-millionaire who had bought the Shahnameh from Baron Edmund de Rothschild's collection in 1959, was offering it for sale. Unwilling to pay the asking price, Teheran came up with an alternative: the de Kooning, which had once hung in Iran's Museum of Contemporary Art - and which an Iranian critic had called 'a savage, aggressive portrayal of a naked woman'. As Iran's ruling mullahs forbade the display of nudes, the de Kooning was of little use to them: why not swap it for the Shahnameh?
Negotiations were conducted in great secrecy - hence the cloak-and-dagger exchange at Vienna airport. But when news of the exchange did finally emerge, most critics applauded it as 'inspired'. In one transaction, Iran had rid itself of a painting it could never show and gained a national treasure. But the deal also achieved something else: it alerted the world to the existence of a hidden store of magnificent art.
Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, a priceless collection of modern art, bought by the Shah of Iran's wife and ranging from Picasso and Van Gogh to Bacon and Pollock, has been lost to the viewing world, buried in the vaults of a museum in Teheran. To the revolutionary government that overthrew the Shah, the paintings were both anathema and inept: 'How about selling all these?' asked a trustee appointed by the revolutionary government. 'They're junk. My son can paint better.' The collection had at least once narrowly missed being dismembered and sold off.
But as the Iranian government has cautiously begun the process of liberalisation during the past two years, some of the paintings have gone on display. The response has been extraordinary, and some of the images produced by the crowds even more extraordinary: women in chadors gazing intently at Andy Warhol's Marilyn and brown-robed mullahs appraising a Roy Lichtenstein. 'Imagine a very great painting that hasn't been seen anywhere for more than 20 years, and then you show it. It was absolutely astonishing, a very emotional moment,' says Dr Ali Samie-Azar, the museum's director.
But by no means all the collection has been displayed. At the end of a ramp that takes visitors through Teheran's Museum of Contemporary Art is the vault containing what Iranians call 'the Treasure'. Barely a handful of people have entered this room, to which only the curator, Firouz Shah Biazi, holds the key. Gaining access took days of pleading. When permission came, it was with a condition: 'Five minutes, no longer,' warned Dr Ali Samie-Azar.
They are five good minutes. Lining the walls are racks containing some of the world's greatest paintings. Two Figures Lying on a Bed, a magnificent Francis Bacon triptych, destined to remain in the vault because the couple are homosexual, hangs next to another Bacon, Reclining Man with Sculpture. Picassos, from his Cubist period, hang next to five Mirós. There are Monets and Pissarros, and a lovely Renoir of a bare-breasted girl - also unlikely to be seen. 'Would you like to see the Jackson Pollock?' asked Biazi, sliding out a rack to reveal one of Pollock's immense, swirling canvasses.
Moments later, he half slid out another rack of Warhols and Jim Dine, leaving the painting at the far end partially obscured. I asked Biazi to withdraw the screen fully. With a shy smile he slid out the rack to reveal Intersection, Jim Carter's photographically exact representation of a young woman's knickers and the top of her thighs. This, too, is likely to remain for Biazi's eyes only. But the reason why the painting is there, and why it will remain hidden, lies 30 years back in the history of Iran.
By the Seventies, Teheran was a city of the desperately poor and the fabulously rich, of chadors and hot pants. In the south miserable slums fanned out from the vast covered bazaar. In the north lived the aristocracy and the nouveaux riches. Flitting between summer houses on the Caspian and homes in Belgravia, the 16th arrondissement and Park Avenue, they drank Dom Pérignon, wore Hermès and drove Mercedes. 'We were not patrons. We were decadent, like the lords of the ancien régime,' says Manucher Farmanfarmian, an Iranian aristocrat and a former oil advisor to the Shah. 'But instead of Napoleon, we got Khomeini.'
Farah Diba, the tall, couture-clad third wife of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, was Iran's Jackie Kennedy. Intelligent and charming, she gathered around her a court of young writers, sculptors and painters. While the Shah was obsessed with oil prices, politics and unrealised schemes to modernise Iran, Farah Diba dreamt of turning Teheran into the eastern capital of modern art. From her private office in the Niavaran Palace, Farah Diba established a department of art and culture; devised a plan to build art galleries and museums in each of Iran's principal cities; and invited Andy Warhol to visit. The Teheran museum was to be the showcase, housing a collection of modern art that might eventually rival New York's.
With the help of her cousin Kamran Diba, a painter and architect, Farah Diba set about acquiring her collection. 'It was a very exciting time,' says Kamran Diba, who now lives in Spain. 'I had an idea, with the Queen's backing, to help the culture of our country. We didn't want art just to say we had it; we wanted to make it available to the people of Iran.' It wasn't always easy: 'A lot of paintings weren't available,' he says. 'I had to beg to get an early Jasper Johns.'
Nevertheless, Diba amassed an extensive collection, which included Lichtensteins, Warhols, Hockneys, Blakes, a Richard Hamilton, a Claes Oldenburg and a Jim Dine. There were also sculptures by Magritte, Henry Moore and Giacometti, as well as works by Francis Bacon, Mark Rothko, Wassily Kandinsky, Joan Miró, Cubist-period Picassos, a Braque and three important Toulouse-Lautrecs. Kamran Diba claims he put the entire collection together for less than $4 million. 'In those days you could buy a Warhol for under $100,000. I paid $350,000 for the Bacon triptych.'
The Teheran museum opened in June 1977 with a three-day gala. Guests included Henry Kissinger and Nelson Rockefeller, as well as art critics, museum directors and collectors from Europe and America. 'It was a happening,' Diba recalls, 'a big bang. We wanted to put Iran on the map.' As the guests assembled in the forecourt of the museum, the Shah and Farah Diba arrived. Farah Diba mingled, chatting with the visitors, but the Shah was stiff and uncomfortable. He had come from the opening of a geological museum, which he had admired, but, says one of the museum's former directors (like many of his contemporaries still living in Teheran the director does not wish to be named), the Museum of Contemporary Art was 'too modern and he didn't like it. He didn't say it, of course, but I saw it in his eyes. He thought there were more important things to be done.'
A friend of Farah Diba's, who also wishes to remain anonymous, believes, 'the Queen's mistake was perhaps in choosing contemporary art. Culturally, Iranians may not have been ready for that. It came too soon.'
Indeed, from the mid-Sixties, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had been leading the opposition to the Shah's absolute power, and to American influence in Iran. From exile - first in Turkey, then in Iraq, then for the last few months of 1978 in Paris - he had written fiery diatribes, which were secretly distributed by a growing network of mullahs and conservative muslims loyal to his cause. In December 1978, a revolutionary upheaval inspired by Khomeini shook Iran. From Teheran's southern slums, thousands of angry men, women and students marched through the city chanting, 'Death to the Shah'. At night they climbed on to their rooftops and cried 'Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar' ('God is Great, God is Great'), the rallying cry of Islam.
The Shah was under siege, and on 16 January 1979 he and Farah Diba fled. Many of the old regime followed them. On 1 February, an Air France 747 touched down on the tarmac of Mehrabad airport in Teheran. From it stepped the 78-year-old Khomeini, wearing the brown cloak and turban of the clergy. He knelt and kissed the ground. Now he and the mullahs who revered him ruled the country - the museum included.
And the museum had been in turmoil. 'The whole city was caught up in the revolution,' says Dr Mehdi Kossar, who had taken over as museum director. 'I was afraid that during the demonstrations mobs might storm the museum and damage the paintings.' He and his remaining staff - many Iranians with links to the Shah had already gone - made a hasty inventory, wrapped the paintings and carried them to the vaults. In due course, revolutionaries did come to the museum and locked the doors, sealing the collection in its underground tomb.
For three years the museum remained closed. When it re-opened in 1982, it dedicated itself to revolutionary painting and, in due course, works that drew their inspiration from the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq war. Now, though, a wider palette is coming into view, and when the museum began displaying works from the long-hidden collection, thousands of artists, students and ordinary Teheranis flocked to see them.
It's a development that, I'm sure, delights Firouz Biazi. For the past 23 years, Biazi has, he says, cared for the collection 'like my children'. As I prepare to leave 'the Treasure', I ask which are his favourite paintings. Without hesitation, he slides out two Rothkos. 'Whenever I'm feeling low, I pull these out and look at them.' He looks round the room. 'All these are magnificent works,' he continues, 'and we're looking after them. But what we really feel is they belong to the world, and we'd be happy if many more people could see them.'
Soon, perhaps, they will.
Friday October 6 12:08 AM ET British Museum Agrees on Ransom
LONDON (AP) - A British museum agreed Thursday to pay $36,000 in ransom for the stolen Enigma machine, a World War II code-breaking machine.
The Enigma machine, once used by the Nazis to send top-secret messages, was stolen in April from the Bletchley Park museum northwest of London. The museum recently received a letter saying the machine would be destroyed if the ransom were not paid by midnight on Friday. One of only three surviving Enigma machines, it is worth about $145,000.
``It would be historic vandalism to destroy this machine,'' said museum director Christine Large. ``It is an irreplaceable piece of history.'' The letter purported to be from someone acting on behalf of a third party who had bought the machine without knowing it was stolen. The Enigma machine, one of only three left in the world, was part of a display at Britain's top-secret World War II intelligence center, where teams of mathematicians, linguists and chess champions famously cracked the secrets of Nazi Germany's Enigma code.
Historians say that the cracking of Enigma, used by the German navy to direct U-boat attacks on Allied convoys, was a major factor in the Allied victory and may have helped to shorten the war.
``Our priority is to get the machine back,'' said Large.
``We have the funds available,'' she said. ``We just need to be in direct communication. This is the time to do business. Can we please discuss how we're going to effect the transaction.''
From: IntlArtCop@aol.com
Date sent: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 22:05:59 EDT
Subject: Re: Invisible Ink
To: securma@xs4all.nl
Just a comment on invisible ink. Over the years there have been several such products. I would absolutely love for a product like this to be possible but so far it has not passed muster with museums. This is not necessarily due to the products as much as to the concerns of the conservators who must know today what a product like this will do in a thousand years. Past products including trace elements with unique nuclear addresses have been used in private collections and artist's personal collections because they do not have to abide by the same standards as museums with regard to conservaiton concerns. I would welcome comment on this product by conservators including what testing might give it a clean bill of health so we can recommend it.
Steve Keller
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/06/business/06AUCT.html
In Plea, Sotheby's Ex-Chief Points to Her Superior
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL and CAROL VOGEL
Speaking in a low, controlled voice, Diana D. Brooks, the former president and chief executive of Sotheby's auction house, pleaded guilty in a federal courtroom in Manhattan yesterday to fixing commission fees with the company's archrival, Christie's, and pointed the finger at A. Alfred Taubman, Sotheby's former chairman, whose orders she said she was following.
Within an hour, Mr. Taubman, the Detroit shopping center magnate who bought a controlling interest in Sotheby's in 1983, fired back with a sharp denial issued through a spokesman. "Whatever Ms. Brooks chose to do, she did completely on her own without my knowledge or approval," Mr. Taubman, 75, said. "If the need arises, I will vigorously defend myself against any charges." He and Ms. Brooks resigned under pressure in February as the case against them built.
Ms. Brooks's statement was the dramatic high point of a day in which the $4-billion-a-year auction industry was exposed in court as a cozy duopoly that for most of a decade colluded to fix hundreds of millions of dollars in fees to the detriment of customers unable to negotiate commission prices. By pleading guilty to a single felony count after a three-year Justice Department investigation, Ms. Brooks, 50, faces up to three years in prison and a fine that could potentially soar into the hundreds of millions of dollars when she is sentenced Jan. 5. In return for her plea, the government promised to file a motion seeking a lesser sentence than that provided under sentencing guidelines. But the decision on whether to file the motion remains the government's, depending on Ms. Brooks's level of cooperation. In court papers filed yesterday, the government named Mr. Taubman as its only remaining target at Sotheby's in its continuing criminal investigation, which Ms. Brooks has now agreed to assist in an effort to reduce her sentence. In a separate but related case, Sotheby's also pleaded guilty in federal court yesterday to price-fixing and other antitrust violations and agreed to a $45 million fine payable over five years. But the judge assigned that case - by happenstance, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who is presiding over a class-action civil lawsuit against Sotheby's and Christie's stemming from the criminal investigation - deferred his approval of the plea until he reviewed additional information.
Judge Kaplan said he wanted to see how far a $512 million civil settlement in the class-action case, which was agreed to last month by Sotheby's and Christie's, would go in providing restitution to victims of the antitrust schemes and whether the $45 million fine in the plea was a fair figure. Judge Kaplan set Dec. 4 for a hearing on Sotheby's financial capacity and the losses to victims.
The guilty plea by Sotheby's was offered by Donaldson C. Pillsbury, its senior vice president and general counsel, accompanied by Steven A. Riess of Weil, Gotshal & Manges.
The pleas by the company and by Ms. Brooks, and a news conference on the cases by the Justice Department's antitrust division in Washington put a strong spotlight on an industry that for all its art and glamor prefers to keep its financial practices out of public view.
"Those charged today were engaged in classic cartel behavior - price-fixing, pure and simple," said A. Douglas Melamed, acting assistant attorney general for the antitrust division. "There are serious crimes, and the antitrust division will prosecute them wherever they occur."
In a statement released in Washington, the Justice Department said, "As a result of the conspiracy, sellers lost their principal bargaining tool." The government put Sotheby's revenues from sellers' commissions in the period charged, from April 1993 to December 1999, at more than $225 million in the United States.
Ms. Brooks, somber in a dark gray suit, offered her guilty plea before Judge Richard N. Berman of Federal District Court in Manhattan. Ms. Brooks, asked by Judge Berman to describe her offense for the court, read a few lines written on a slip of paper: "At the direction of a superior, I had a number of meetings and conversations with a representative of Christie's International in which, among other things, I agreed to fix prices with respect to the commissions charged to sellers during the period charged." And she added, "Many of the objects sold crossed state lines and elsewhere." Mr. Taubman was Ms. Brooks's only superior.
Ms. Brooks, accompanied by her lawyers, Stephen E. Kaufman and John S. Siffert, made no effort to evade the throng of reporters in the courtroom and photographers outside, but declined to say anything about the proceeding. Government prosecutors in the case, John J. Greene and Patricia Jannaco, were far more specific and wide-ranging in their charges against Ms. Brooks, contending that she and co-conspirators also agreed which company would raise its commission rates first and which would then follow, and agreed to exchange customer information in order to monitor their illicit pact.
The prosecutors also charged that Ms. Brooks and co-conspirators agreed not to make interest-free loans to sellers or to make charitable contributions to sellers like museums, libraries and family foundations as a way of soliciting business. By her plea, Ms. Brooks accepted guilt on these charges, criminal acts under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
By coming forward first with evidence of the conspiracy in January, Christie's was provided conditional amnesty from prosecution and so has not been charged. It must, however, cooperate fully with the investigation.
Ms. Brooks, once called the most powerful woman in the art world, must also cooperate fully - as must Sotheby's if its plea is accepted by Judge Kaplan - at the risk of jeopardizing the plea agreement. Ms. Brooks is specifically required to produce all documents sought by the government, to answer all questions fully and truthfully and to testify before the grand jury and at any trial.
Judge defers action on Sotheby's guilty plea
October 5, 2000
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Sotheby's Holdings Inc. pleaded guilty on Thursday to a multimillion-dollar price-fixing scheme with auction house rival Christie's, but a federal judge delayed action on the plea to consider whether victims will be adequately compensated.
The judge said members of the class action have not yet been notified of the $512 million settlement reached late last month by the boards of both Christie's and Sotheby's. He said a fairness hearing must still be held to determine whether the settlement is adequate.
more:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/STYLE/arts/10/05/crime.sothebys.reut/index.html