[ad_1]
However, in recent years, the business relationship between the parties has soured after a dispute arose about payment, with the company and its director, Jonathan Moon, claiming Agam owes the business US$4.1 million ($6.81m).
Agam disputes the debt and considers that most of the overall bill has been inappropriately inflated.
The company still has in its possession 3782 artworks, including 266 originals and 3500 prints of designs created by Agam, which he claims are worth a combined US$20m.
The company says it needs to sell the paintings in order to recover the money it claims Agam owes it, as well as to avoid liquidation and bankruptcy for its owner.
This prompted Agam to seek, and be awarded, an interim injunction in the High Court in September last year to prevent what he called a “fire sale” of his artwork.
OAIP then applied to have that interim injunction rescinded or varied. While the court refused to grant OAIP the application, it ordered that Agam pay $2m into a trust account as security for costs.
However, Agam didn’t pay the money, and the interim injunction lapsed.
Then, in April this year, Agam learned that the “crown jewels” of his artwork might be sold very soon. He applied for various remedial orders, including that the court rescind the order that the interim injunction lapse for Agam’s failure to pay security for costs, on the basis that OAIP and Moon had provided false or misleading evidence to the court.
The ‘crown jewels’
On June 10 this year, a listing appeared in the Herald’s classified section listing 16 of Agam’s artworks for sale online, with bids opening for two weeks from June 12.
“Proceeds from the sale will be applied to reduce a debt owed to OAIP. That sum of that debt (as of June 2024) for this notice is: USD $4,512,634.00,” the listing reads.
OAIP told the High Court it had advised Agam that the sales needed to happen soon to secure income to pay its debts, because if it didn’t, the prints would be seized by its primary creditor.
Another hearing was then scheduled to hear Agam’s claim Moon had misled the court by claiming that the 3782 artworks were the “only pieces of designs developed with Mr Agam in OAIP’s possession”.
In fact, a further 844 artworks had been produced by a third party in the United States, which had then been sent to OAIP through Agam’s son for his father to inspect and sign when he next visited New Zealand.
Agam’s lawyers viewed this as “careful wording” intended to exclude the 844 artworks that the company didn’t directly produce, though they conceded his evidence was “technically correct”.
It wasn’t until April this year that Agam became aware Moon had travelled to the United States with a number of these artworks and entered into an arrangement with an auction house to sell them.
At least 15 of the artworks were then auctioned off.
In May, Moon told the court he believed those artworks to be outside the scope of those captured in Agam’s original statement of claim.
Justice Andrew Becroft held that Moon’s initial evidence can fairly be described as a “half truth”.
“All in all, I am satisfied that Mr Moon’s statement that he had possession and control of the held artworks was not true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. I consider he stated this deliberately,” Justice Becroft said.
However, despite this, Justice Becroft said that even if he’d known the true position regarding the rest of the artwork, he would have still been concerned about the plight of Moon’s company and would not have taken a different approach in ordering Agam to pay $2m as security.
“Had I been informed of the true situation, the most I would have done would have been to allow an amendment to the statement of claim in order to include the held artworks,” Justice Becroft said.
Moon told NZME in a statement provided by his lawyer that he had never intended to mislead the court by omission in his affidavit.
The 16 artworks that comprise the “crown jewels” of the artworks have not yet been sold, but are listed on a website that shows an Auckland address on its contact page.
Imminent sale
Potential buyers must register to see the full details of the auction as well as sign a non-disclosure agreement, provide proof of identity and their financial means.
The website states that Agam himself “undertook a dedicated four-month journey to New Zealand. Here, he personally reviewed, inspected, approved, and hand-signed each of the 16 masterworks.”
In relation to the sale of the artworks; Moon told NZME he is hopeful of achieving a successful and competitive auction.
“All of the sale items are one-of-a-kind originals,” he said.
“The auction is therefore an opportunity for art lovers and fans of Mr Agam’s work to own something truly unique.”
Agam has decided not to involve himself at all with any sale of his artworks and believes that any sale should not and cannot legally be carried out by Moon or OAIP.
Agam’s lawyers sought a stay from the High Court of its earlier judgment that was argued at the end of June, which if successful, would have had the effect of freezing the proceeds of sale of the artworks.
In that “interim interim” ruling, Justice Becroft did not make an order preventing the sale of the 16 artworks, however, he did make an order that any proceeds from those sales to be held in trust by Moon’s solicitors until further order of the court. The case is scheduled to be heard by the Court of Appeal at the end of July.
In a statement provided to NZME by Agam’s lawyers, he emphasised that the court had not granted Moon and OAIP the legal right to sell the artworks.
“Mr Agam is honoured people value his art, which is why he is concerned prospective collectors buying under those circumstances from Mr Moon / Outer Aspect IP Ltd may find their enjoyment – and investment – marred by legal disputes.”
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū, covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
[ad_2]
Source link
