The world-famous art dealer and billionaire filed against each other in court because of multimillion deals with works Contemporary Art. The bone of contention has served as a sculpture by Jeff Koons for $ 4 million

billionaire Ronald Perelman Source: galleristny.com

art dealer Larry Gagosian Source: askmen.com

American billionaire Ronald Perelman and world-renowned art dealer Larry Gagosian with a difference of a few hours have filed against each other in court because millions deals with the works of Contemporary Art. Until recently, the gallery owner and collector reputed good friends. Mutual claims will be considered by the Supreme Court of New York in Manhattan.

According to Ronald Perelman in his lawsuit, the last 20 years, he saw Larry Gagosian his chief advisor in the purchase and sale of works art. However Gagosian, using his authority the world's leading art dealer, to manipulate the price of art, and hid from his client relevant information to influence his decision to buy.

According to Perelman, the matter was as follows. The billionaire made with the Gagosian Gallery has a contract to buy an unfinished granite sculpture by Jeff Koons 'Popeye' for 4 million dollars, which he agreed to pay five portions of 800 thousand dollars. However, from a concealed important information: the contract between Koons and Gagosyanom, Gallery in the event of further resale of the work will be obliged to give the artist a 70 per cent share of any amount in excess of the original price of sculpture in a $ 4 million, and received 80 percent interest if it have to buy this product in unfinished form. Somehow, knowing the details of the secret contract between Koons and Gagosyanom, Perelman decided against purchasing the "Popeye", because in this situation forces (when the benefit from the growth of the market price is the artist) gallery is unlikely to be interested in the resale or repurchase of sculpture more than $ 4 million. So, Perelman is unlikely to be able to make money on it, especially when you consider the fact that the Gagosian Gallery is a major seller of Koons' work in the global art market.

Frustrated collector refused to pay for the previously made at the Gagosian shop. This is what was the reason for the return of legal action by the Gagosian Gallery. These are, first, the sculpture of a certain contemporary artist for $ 12.6 million, which Perelman ordered in January and received in June. Instead of the promised 12 million collector paid "significantly less money" (as one of the sources shows the amount of 4.7 million dollars), and was offered a job in the scraps from his collection. The same principle is used barter Perelman when he was brought before the ordered pattern of a certain contemporary artist for $ 10.5 million. He took a picture, but instead offered the gallery works from its collection, including a contract for an unfinished sculpture (you can guess that we are in a suit talking about Gagosian Koons sculpture, although no names were called). The lawsuit Perelman, by contrast, openly stating that in exchange for some kind of picture he gave the gallery of Koons, three other works from the collection, and 250 thousand dollars.

Gagosian Gallery accepted the terms Perelman, paying for work from his collection, a total of 18 million dollars. But there were no profits, of course, on this transaction is not received. Gallery, on the contrary, had to bear the cost of his own pocket, - stated in the lawsuit Gagosian. Dealer lost millions on this, besides several works by Perelman $ 7.8 million at the moment it is not possible to sell. Gallery requires the collector payments previously agreed price for the sculpture and painting (12.6 and 10.5 million), net of funds that could help out the gallery for the implementation of some barter work Perelman. A work of Perelman that gallery can not sell, she wants him back.

Court will decide who is right and who is wrong in this dispute. If the claims are true Perelman will receive an explanation of the unprecedented growth of the welfare of Jeff Koons in recent years, it is proved that the artist receives a substantial profit at resale own work.

Prepared Maria Onuchina , AI

Sources : bloomberg.com , galleristny.com , guardian.co.uk , nydailynews.com , artinvestment.ru