Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's

What the Order Did

Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that three court exhibits be attached to the order: a voir dire questionnaire used during jury selection on January 8, 2024; a draft instruction considered before the parties’ closing arguments; and a draft jury charge considered at a January 29, 2024 conference about the instructions given to the jury.

Claims Submitted to the Jury

The materials state that Accent Delight International Ltd. claimed Sotheby’s and Sotheby’s, Inc. aided and abetted fraud by Yves Bouvier in connection with the plaintiff’s purchases of René Magritte’s Le Domaine d’Arnheim, Gustav Klimt’s Wasserschlangen II, Amedeo Modigliani’s Tête, and Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi. The defendants denied those claims.

The pre-summation instruction stated that the jury would deliberate only on the aiding-and-abetting fraud claims concerning those four purchases. It told jurors not to deliberate on claims concerning the 2014 auction of Modigliani’s Tête or the claim that Sotheby’s aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty concerning the purchase of Salvator Mundi. It also directed jurors to disregard evidence relating only to those matters, including evidence about Sotheby’s 2015 insurance valuation and the painting’s 2017 auction sale price.

Jury Instructions

The charge stated that Accent Delight had to prove each aiding-and-abetting fraud claim by clear and convincing evidence. The three elements were: Bouvier committed fraud concerning the transaction; the defendants had actual knowledge of the fraud; and the defendants substantially assisted in committing it. The charge further described the requirements for proving fraud, including a false and important factual representation, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, an intent to induce reliance, justified reliance, and damages.

The charge instructed that damages, if awarded, would generally be based on the plaintiff’s out-of-pocket loss—the difference between what it paid and the artwork’s fair market value when purchased. It permitted compensatory damages and, if compensatory damages were awarded for a particular claim, possible punitive damages if the defendants’ conduct was wanton and reckless or malicious. The verdict form provided separate yes-or-no questions and damages questions for each of the four artwork transactions.

Disposition and Limits of the Record

The order itself attached trial-management materials and did not enter judgment, decide liability, award damages, or state a jury verdict. The provided opinion text therefore does not establish the trial’s ultimate outcome.