Digital Editions
Newsletters
Subscribe
Digital Editions
Newsletters
Art market
Museums & heritage
Exhibitions
Books
Podcasts
Columns
Art of Luxury
Adventures with Van Gogh
Venice Biennale
Art market
Museums & heritage
Exhibitions
Books
Podcasts
Columns
Art of Luxury
Adventures with Van Gogh
Venice Biennale
Art market
news

Anatole Shagalov must pay Sotheby's $2m for Keith Haring painting, judge rules

Art dealer did not pay up for painting bought at auction in 2017

Georgina Adam
3 July 2020
Share
Keith Haring’s Untitled (1982) was sold for $6.5m at Sotheby’s in May 2017 but was never paid for © The Keith Haring Foundation via Sotheby’s

Keith Haring’s Untitled (1982) was sold for $6.5m at Sotheby’s in May 2017 but was never paid for © The Keith Haring Foundation via Sotheby’s

Sotheby’s has won a $2m summary judgement in its lawsuit against the art dealer Anatole Shagalov of Nature Morte gallery of Great Neck, New York (no relation to the Delhi gallery).

At issue was a 10-foot square painting on a tarp by Keith Haring, Untitled (1982) which Shagalov bought at auction in New York on 18 May 2017. The cost was $6.5m with fees, but Shagalov never ponied up the sum. After various unsuccessful attempts to get payment, the auction house resold the work in October of the same year for $4.4m to the guarantor—and went to court to recover the difference.

Shagalov claimed that he had been given “special terms” by Adam Chinn, who at the time was still with Sotheby’s—Chinn was made redundant in December 2018—but the court found that: “There simply is no indication written or otherwise which supports the notion that Sotheby’s agreed to an extended payment plan beyond 90 days.” Shagalov further claimed he was on the point of finding a buyer and so be able to pay for the work, and that Sotheby’s off-loaded it too quickly at too low a price.

The court was not having any of that and awarded damages against Shagalov of just over $1.5m, with additional damages to be determined, but likely to take the total to about $2m. Shagalov’s lawyer Rikk Stone says his client plans to appeal.

This is just one of a slew of lawsuits that target Shagalov, who has become embroiled in manifold disputes over non-payment for works. Phillips has a pending lawsuit over Morris Louis’s Para IV (1959) and Christopher Wool’s Untitled (P271) (1997) bought in 2015 by Shagalov for a total of just under $6m.

Asked whether Shagalov is able to pay, Sotheby’s outside counsel Paul Cossu of the law firm Olsoff Cahill Cossu, says Shagalov has 20 years to do so and adds: “I doubt that Mr. Shagalov will be permitted to bid at Sotheby’s or any other major auction house until his debts have been repaid.”

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

Art marketAnatole ShagalovNon-paymentSotheby'sKeith HaringArt law
Share
Subscribe to The Art Newspaper’s digital newsletter for your daily digest of essential news, views and analysis from the international art world delivered directly to your inbox.
Newsletter subscribe
Information
About
Contact
Cookie policy
Data protection
Privacy policy
Frequently Asked Questions
Subscription T&Cs
Terms and conditions
Advertise
Sister Papers
Sponsorship policy
Follow us
Instagram
Bluesky
LinkedIn
Facebook
TikTok
YouTube
© The Art Newspaper

Related content

Art marketnews
13 October 2023

‘The market has changed’: Sotheby’s scrapes together £45.6m from Frieze Week double-header in London

The auction house’s The Now sale of ultra-contemporary art was a success, but its marquee contemporary art sale came up well short of expectations

Georgina Adam
Art marketnews
29 September 2021

'No matter how wealthy you are, no one is above the law': New York court rejects Sotheby's attempt to dismiss suit alleging it helped collector evade tax on $27m of art

Attorney general claims the auction house created and used tax exemption certificates that falsely presented the buyer as an art dealer in order to dodge payments. Sotheby's says it will continue to contest the case

Wallace Ludel
Art marketcomment
18 June 2019

Sotheby's newfound privacy gives it greater freedom, but at what cost to the rest of us?

Former public company status left the auction house at a disadvantage to rival Christie's, but its quarterly finance reports provided rare insight in a secretive market

Georgina Adam