Agreement Reached on a Reprieve for Leibovitz Loan Repayment

By Allen Salkin
Charles Dharapak/Associated Press Annie Leibovitz during a photo shoot earlier this year.

Update | 4:12 p.m. Annie Leibovitz and the company that lent her $24 million, Art Capital Group, announced Friday afternoon they have reached an agreement to restructure the photographer’s finances and settle a lawsuit between them. But she could still be in peril of losing her homes and the rights to her photographs.

The loan was due Sept. 8, and after days of negotiations, the parties released a joint statement about a settlement that, for now, spared Ms. Leibovitz from foreclosure.

But the photographs and the homes remain pledged as collateral for the loan, and another deadline to pay back the loan could arrive in the next few months, legal experts said. The statement did not specify when the new deadline is.

As part of the settlement, Ms. Leibovitz bought back the rights to sell her homes and the copyrights to her work. She had previously ceded those rights to Art Capital as part of her loan agreement. It is possible that to pay back the loan, she may still have to sell the rights to her photographs or some real estate.

If she does not pay back the loan Art Capital could still foreclose and sell her photographs and her homes in Manhattan and Rhinebeck, N.Y.

A joint statement released by Ms. Leibovitz and Art Capital read:

The agreement will result in the withdrawal of the suit that Art Capital filed against Ms. Leibovitz on July 29, 2009 and extends the maturity date for the $24 million loan Art Capital provided Ms. Leibovitz, which was originally due on September 8, 2009. Ms. Leibovitz has also purchased from Art Capital its rights to act as exclusive agent in the sale of her real property and copyrights. Ms. Leibovitz will therefore retain control of those assets within the context of the loan agreement which shall prevail until satisfied.

“In these challenging times I am appreciative to Art Capital for all they have done to resolve this matter and for their cooperation and continued support,” Ms. Leibovitz said. “I also want to thank my family, friends, and colleagues for being there for me and look forward to concentrating on my work.”

Ian Peck, chief executive officer of Art Capital Group, said: “We’re gratified to be able to further assist Ms. Leibovitz to achieve financial stability and proud to have been of such value to her at this juncture in her life and career.”

Ms. Leibovitz’s plight has attracted interest since the news broke in February that, faced with mounting debts and court cases from unpaid vendors, she had borrowed millions of dollars from Art Capital, using
the rights to her photographs as collateral.

In July, the lender filed a lawsuit in state Supreme Court claiming that Ms. Leibovitz owed it hundreds of thousands of dollars in past-due fees and was not cooperating with its efforts to sell her photographic archive and prepare her homes for a potential sale.

In a separate suit, Art Capital sued Getty Images, claiming the photo agency had negotiated an improper contract with Ms. Leibovitz, which made it difficult for Art Capital to continue its efforts to sell the Leibovitz archive for $50 million.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Ralphinjersey September 11, 2009 · 2:43 pm

If this had been Joe Blow behind on a $5,000 car loan, he’d be walking to work. Twenty-four million? No problem.

Katya September 11, 2009 · 2:49 pm

Joe Blow has also not no significantly contributed to the artistic and intellectual world. A bank with a little sympathy for the cultural significance of Leibovitz’s work is a refreshing change.

Uncle Pruitt September 11, 2009 · 2:50 pm

You can blow $24 million, and get off scott free! But the rest of us who are not friends of Tina Brown……

Joe September 11, 2009 · 2:51 pm

Was it Getty who observed, “If you owe the bank $100, that’s your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that’s the bank’s problem.”

Bobcat September 11, 2009 · 2:52 pm

what a bunch of hooey!! Mick Jagger should have come to her rescue $24 M and now Ian Peck says all is well. Weren’t they ready to crucify her on a Greenwich Village hill.

famdoc September 11, 2009 · 2:54 pm

Art Capital’s statement is a very unusual statement from a lending institution. I am sure there’s a lot more than just altruism behind this agreement. Surely, Art Capital stands to gain more by forgiving Ms. Leibovitz some of her indebtedness, both in terms of good public relations and the cost of litigating a nearly-bankrupt artist. The public can be satisfied that we will be blessed with more work by Ms. Leibovitz and that she will retain artistic control over her work.
I think everyone wins in this agreement.

paul September 11, 2009 · 2:55 pm

They want the money; they consider it more likely that they will get cash from her than from an auction of her work. $24 million is a lot more leverage than $5,000.

Matt September 11, 2009 · 2:57 pm

It may not be fair, exactly, that banks are more accommodating to people who owe them lots of money than to people who owe them a little bit of money. But it does make economic sense.

Liebovitz wasn’t able to cut a deal because she was famous; she was able to cut a deal because her creditor knew it was worth it to try. Lots of people with 8-figure debts refinanced this week; this is the only one you know about.

RickinSac September 11, 2009 · 2:58 pm

Well, Ralph, you know the old saying: “If you owe the bank a 100 grand, they own you; if you owe the bank a 100 million, you own them.”

It probably came down to the bank not having a clue about what to do with the collateral, just like Michael Jackson’s situation; still, I’m happy for Ms. Leibovitz, and I truly hope she doesn’t screw up a second chance–which is exactly how I’d feel about the guy with the car loan…if they gave him one.

Julie September 11, 2009 · 3:07 pm

She’s a hack! She’s commercial and she makes commercials. And with all of her corporate support STILL she managed to completely squander $24 million? I’d say she should be bankrupt, but is it better that Art Capital have the money, just so they can lend it out predatorily to other self-regarding ad industry “artists”?

gillie September 11, 2009 · 3:17 pm

If Annie found a smart Jewish accountant from Long Island a dozen years ago she would never have been in this situation.

mk September 11, 2009 · 3:17 pm

getting harder and harder to feel any sympathy for leibovitz

casual observer September 11, 2009 · 3:19 pm

The idignity of a deadbeat having to pay her bills! Shame, shame!

Will September 11, 2009 · 3:20 pm

I wouldn’t say she’s a hack , but neither would I say she’s contributed to the artistic and intellectual world in any real sense . She’s a well paid commercial photographer , most would say too well paid , and a horrible manager of her money . Stay tuned , It’s not over yet !

Shinyone September 11, 2009 · 3:22 pm

Julie – Sounds like sour grapes.

Jim in Chicago September 11, 2009 · 3:23 pm

“I also want to thank my family, friends, and colleagues for being there for me and look forward to concentrating on my work.”

I like a lot of her work, but it seems to me her problem is that she has been concentrating too much on her work and not enough on her business finances. Sounds like this delays things for a while longer rather than remediating them.

Andy September 11, 2009 · 3:23 pm

Katya: Joe Blow has also not no significantly contributed to the artistic and intellectual world. A bank with a little sympathy for the cultural significance of Leibovitz’s work is a refreshing change.

You have it all wrong girlfriend! This, uncompromising, snobby, difficult-to-work-with “artist” should have lost her shirt and a whole lot more. You’ve no idea as to the number of people this woman has abused, manipulated, and taken advantaged of over her long but unseemingly useless career. Pay the $24 million to the cop who protects your neighborhood, the teacher who educates your kids, or the fireman who saves your house from burning, not the stylish thug who photograghs you when you are pregnant.

Good ridance to Annie and her “Vanity” ilk!

2olivas September 11, 2009 · 3:23 pm

She was spared having to learn a valuable lesson: How live a life focused on what’s important. Now she’s free to acquire more THINGS as usual.

ejc September 11, 2009 · 3:24 pm

just another case of perceived genius getting to break the rules, get up on everyone else. There exists an air of unrealistic forgiveness for the perceived gifted. “They[liebowitz] are as responsible as joe the plumber! Why do they who have it all, continue to have all of us continue to give them “it all’?

Susie Q September 11, 2009 · 3:24 pm

“I…look forward to concentrating on my work.” – Leibovitz

Perhaps concentrating on her work, to the detriment of her finances, is partially to blame for the mess she finds herself in.

I do have some sympathy for artists who sacrifice much of their personal stability (fiscal and otherwise) in the service of their “work”, but economically successful artists need not subscribe to that outdated Romantic notion of suffering for the art.

It’s ok, Annie. You can be talented, wildly successful, and stable — all at the same time. Leave the madness schtick to Liszt and ETA Hoffmann.

bruce September 11, 2009 · 3:24 pm

maybe she should turn the camera on herself this time…

Paul Isaac Hagouel September 11, 2009 · 3:24 pm

Well, all people are basically intelligent.
Therefore, I am sure, there is no need for any comment in order for anyone to draw hers of his conclusions!

michael September 11, 2009 · 3:25 pm

her work is so dreadfully middlebrow,
no serious person would consider her
an artist.

R Shaw September 11, 2009 · 3:25 pm

Art Capital blinked. Chalk up one for celebrity.

Scott September 11, 2009 · 3:26 pm

Okay, it’s bit off topic perhaps, but you forgot the third part of the saying RickinSac, which in your phrasing would be something like: “If you owe the bank a 100 billion, they own everyone.” We’ve seen the truth of that lately….