© Patrick McMullan Photography

Annie Leibovitz at the International Center of Photography's Infinity Awards in May, where she was honored with a lifetime achievement award

Annie Leibovitz When in... Chicago Leibovitz Wins O’Keeffe Museum Prize Debut Photo Fair Finds Strong Interest in Tokyo Part Owner of $24 Million Loan, Goldman Offers to Help Leibovitz Annie Leibovitz’s Best Option: Bankruptcy Court? Annie Leibovitz Sued for Breach of Contract After $24 Million Loan Citing Economy, Acconci Closes Studio

Send a letter to the Editor

Save to Del.icio.us Digg this

The one-page statement declared that the parties “have reached an agreement that provides a further restructuring of Ms. Leibovitz’s finances and resolves pending legal matters between them.”

In the suit, filed July 29 in New York State Supreme Court, Art Capital Group alleged that Leibovitz had disregarded a sales agreement she had signed that designated Art Capital as the “irrevocable exclusive agent for any sale of fine art and intellectual property owned and created by Ms. Leibovitz and the Leibovitz entities and certain real property” — three Greenwich Village townhouses and a large estate in Rhinebeck, N.Y. — “via licensed real estate brokers throughout the terms of the loan and for a two-year period after Leibovitz’s obligations under the loan are satisfied.”

Art Capital's access to the pictures, which together with the real estate formed the collateral for the $24 million loan and was the backbone of the sales agreement, included “every photographic image ever taken by Ms. Leibovitz and those taken from December 17, 2008, through the (so-called) Tail Period.”

The lawsuit charged that Leibovitz blocked Art Capital’s right to act as the exclusive sales agent and described her actions as “boldly deceptive conduct.”

Sept. 8 served as a double deadline for Leibovitz: It was the last date to repay the $24 million to Art Capital Group and to respond to the lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court.

On Sept. 1, the photographer’s attorney gained a one-month extension to respond to the court charges. But Sept. 8 passed with Leibovitz technically going into default on the huge loan, although Art Capital did not take any measures to officially declare her in default, which most likely would have resulted in the photographer seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court.

The last-minute resolution did not provide many details, apart from the fact that Art Capital has withdrawn its lawsuit and extended the “maturity date” for the $24 million loan for an unspecified amount of time. In addition, Leibovitz “purchased from Art Capital its rights to act as exclusive agent in the sale of her real property and copyrights,” though no dollar figure or specific terms were released.

According to the resolution statement, Leibovitz “will therefore retain control of those assets within the context of the loan agreement, which shall prevail until satisfied.”

The bitter and much-publicized dispute, which has become almost a daily staple in the tabloids, sounded quite tame in the joint statement. Said Leibovitz: “In these challenging times, I am appreciative to Art Capital for all they have done to resolve this matter for their cooperation and continued support.”

Said Ian Peck, founder and chief executive officer of Art Capital Group, “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.”

Efforts to glean more details on the agreement were unsuccessful, though it is known that Leibovitz’s photographic archive and real estate are still part of the collateral for the $24 million loan. Which means, of course, that if she is unable to get new financing to pay back the loan and once again goes into default, Art Capital could foreclose on the loan and seize the collateral.

A source close to the photographer, who insisted on anonymity, said of the agreement, “Basically, it was good for her because now she has more time and flexibility, and it’s good for them [Art Capital] because they have a greater likelihood of being paid back.”