While the art world watches, an oligarch takes an auction house to court

In the following weeks, Bouvier wrote to Rybolovlev’s assistant to inform him of negotiations that Judge Furman later concluded never took place. The seller, Bouvier wrote, had rejected offers of $90 million, $100 million, $120 million and $125 million before finally accepting $127.5 million.

On May 2, 2013, Bouvier, not Rybolovlev, purchased the “Mundi” through Sotheby’s by hanging a painting and cash worth $83 million. A day later, he sold it to Rybolovlev for $127.5 million, according to court papers.

In early 2015, at a time when Rybolovlev was beginning to become suspicious, Bouvier asked Sotheby’s for an appraisal for the ‘Mundi’. Valette suggested to a colleague at the auction house that they value the work at $125 million, but the colleague refused, court papers show.

Ultimately, Valette asked the colleague to change the valuation to 100 million euros, or roughly $114 million, Judge Furman found, and to edit the accompanying letter, “removing any reference to Bouvier’s previous purchase of the piece.” While the judge drew attention to the changes, which the jury will hear about at trial, he ruled that the appraisal was not evidence that Sotheby’s was complicit in fraud.

Rybolovlev later sold the work at Christie’s to a Saudi prince for $450 million, the highest amount ever paid for a work of art at auction.

Experts say the jury trial could provide new guidelines for a more transparent art market.

“There is so much secrecy in the art world that buyers sometimes don’t know how much money others are making from transactions,” said Leila A. Amineddoleh, an arts and cultural heritage attorney. “Thus, this case will help clarify the responsibilities and fiduciary duties that dealers and auction houses owe to customers.”