A painting purportedly by Frans Hals was sold by Sotheby's in 2011

The commercial court in London ruled today that the investment company Fairlight Art Ventures was liable for the reimbursement Sothebys paid to an American client for a painting purportedly by Frans Hals, that was later described as a “modern forgery".

Justice Robin Knowles supported Sotheby's claims, saying that throughout the series of events "[the auction house] acted in accordance with the contractual framework". According to the judgement, Fairlight must pay Sothebys a total of $5.375m plus interest as well as costs.

In 2016, Sotheby's refunded the Seattle collector Richard Hedreen's company EPC Nevada the full $11.75m it had paid for the alleged fake. The painting had been sold to EPC Nevada in 2011 by the British art dealer Mark Weiss through a private sale at the auction house. They charged a fee of 5% of the purchase price.

Last April, the court examined the lawsuit filed by Sotheby's against Weiss and Fairlight to recover the amount refunded to EPC Nevada. Just before the trial, Weiss chose to settle out of court for $4.2m.

The British dealer and Fairlight bought the painting in Paris in 2010 for €3m, from a Frenchman living in northern Italy called Giulano Ruffini. The Musée du Louvre, which had declared the work a "national treasure", was also trying to buy it at the time for €5m. Last May, a French judge investigating a series of allegedly forged Old Masters, issued an arrest warrant against Ruffini, his son and a local painter. The warrants are currently being examined by Italian courts of appeal.

In 2016, alarmed by the news of the criminal investigation in France, Sotheby's proposed to Hedreen that the painting undergo a forensic examination. The results allegedly showed that pigments, allegedly from the 20th century, were located deep within and underneath the paint layers. But Weiss and Fairlight claimed that the auction house had no contractual nor reasonable grounds to cancel the sale. Furthermore, Fairlight claimed it was only acting as an investor, "not a partner" of the British dealer, meaning it could not be liable for any loss.

They also challenged the analysis undertaken bRead More – Source