[CPProt.net] Legal battle continues over Warhol painting

[Ellie Bruggeman]

  Legal battle continues over Warhol painting

Kersten Lindholm, a Swedish heiress living in Greenwich, is fighting a 
state court ruling declaring Peter Brant, a local newsprint mogul, the 
rightful owner of a 1962 Andy Warhol painting worth $12 million.

Brant purchased the painting, "Red Elvis," in 2000 from Lindholm's art 
dealer, who was later convicted of stealing the painting.

Last month, Stamford Superior Court Judge Chase Rogers ruled Brant was 
the owner of the 1962 Andy Warhol silkscreen, according to court papers, 
after a three-year legal battle with Lindholm, who alleged in a civil 
suit in 2002 that Brant had conspired with Anders Malmberg, her Swedish 
art dealer, to buy the painting without her permission.

On Friday, Lindholm, 60, filed an appeal in state Superior Court in 
Stamford, according to her attorney, Lawrence Weinstein of Proskauer 
Rose in Manhattan.

Rogers ruled Aug. 29 that Brant's purchase of "Red Elvis," a nearly 
6-foot-tall silkscreen featuring 36 identical images of Elvis Presley's 
face, was valid. Brant, a longtime Warhol collector, bought the painting 
in 2000 for $2.9 million from Malmberg, who had represented Lindholm, of 
Cob Island Drive, in many art transactions, according to court papers. 
The painting is now worth as much as $12 million and is in Brant's 
private collection, his spokeswoman, Sara Fitzmaurice, said.

In 2000, Malmberg lied to Brant and said he had bought the painting from 
Lindholm, according to court filings, and in turn offered to sell it to 
Brant.

But according to Lindholm's suit, Brant allegedly schemed with Malmberg 
to purchase the painting, arguing Brant knew Lindholm was the owner of 
the work.

In his decision, Rogers concluded that Brant made a reasonable effort to 
ensure that Malmberg was authorized to sell the painting, showing due 
diligence by checking the Art Loss Register, which tracks lost and 
stolen paintings, and making further checks for liens or other financial 
demands on the painting. Rogers also found that because Malmberg at the 
time was a reputable art dealer who had sold works on Lindholm's behalf 
for many years, it was reasonable for Brant to assume he was acting 
legitimately.

Brant was unavailable for comment, Fitzmaurice said, and Lindholm could 
not be reached for comment.

"This decision basically vindicates Mr. Brant as the innocent purchaser 
who paid fair value for the painting," said Brant's attorney, Jay 
Sandak, of Sandak, Hennessey & Greco, in Stamford. "Mrs. Lindholm was 
wronged by Malmberg."

Weinstein said the appeal will focus on challenging the court's 
conclusion that Brant did enough to verify Malmberg's ownership of the 
painting.

Weinstein said Brant's due diligence should have alerted him that the 
painting could not be sold because of a court order barring the sale of 
property while Kersten Lindholm was in the midst of a divorce from her 
husband, Magnus.

"The court recognized this was not an ordinary art transaction and that 
he (Brant) had a legal duty to investigate," Weinstein said. "A primary 
ground for appeal is this: given the facts known to Mr. Brant when he 
purchased the painting, was it reasonable for him to do so without 
contacting either Mr. or Mrs. Lindholm or their divorce attorneys. Had 
he done so, he would have learned not only that Mrs. Lindholm had not 
authorized the sale of the painting, but also, that as the trial court 
found, an order of the divorce court prevented her from selling it."

The lawsuit had sought the return of the painting, monetary damages of 
not less than $12 million, and punitive damages.

Sandak said because of Malmberg's long association with the Lindholms, 
it was reasonable for Brant to deduce Malmberg probably had the 
authority to make the transaction.

"If you entrust something you own to a dealer and someone buys the 
property from him and he has no knowledge of wrongdoing, you take the 
risk of entrusting it to a bad guy," Sandak said.

Brant purchased the painting while it was on exhibit in Europe as part 
of a Warhol tour put on by the Guggenheim Museum of New York. Brant 
arranged for Lindholm to lend the painting to the tour, according to 
court papers.

In early February 2000, Malmberg agreed to sell the painting to Brant 
for $2.9 million, according to the decision, telling Brant he had 
purchased the painting from Lindholm.

On Feb. 17, 2000, the Guggenheim wrote to Lindholm, informing her that 
the European museum tour was ending early, and she needed to retrieve 
the painting.

Having already sold the painting to Brant without telling Lindholm, 
Malmberg delayed the discovery of the sale by Lindholm by suggesting 
that she keep the painting in Europe and lend it to a Denmark museum, a 
proposition she agreed to, court records show.

But the painting was shipped to Brant in Copenhagen on May 5, 2000, the 
file indicates.

In June 2001, Lindholm learned about Malmberg's sale of her painting 
when she read that Brant had purchased "Red Elvis," according to the 
court file.

The suit named Malmberg, Brant and the Brant Foundation, an arts 
education foundation Brant started in 1996 to acquire 20th century 
artworks. After buying the painting, Brant transferred ownership to the 
foundation.

In 2003 Malmberg began serving a three-year term in Sweden on criminal 
theft charges in connection with the sale of "Red Elvis," and has not 
paid a $2.9 million judgment to Kersten Lindholm for the purchase price 
of selling the painting.

"He appears to be judgment proof," Weinstein said. "If he has any assets 
he has hidden them very well."

http://www.greenwichtime.com