In re Salander-O'Reilly Galleries, LLC

2014 WL 7389901 (2014)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Salander-O'Reilly Galleries, LLC

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
2014 WL 7389901 (2014)

Facts

Lawrence Salander owned and managed Salander-O’Reilly Galleries, LLC (SOG) (debtor). SOG borrowed roughly $29 million from a bank pursuant to a loan agreement. Section 6.1 of the loan agreement stated that SOG granted the bank a continuing security interest in all of SOG’s personal property of every kind, “whether now owned or hereafter acquired or arising.” Section 6.2 of the agreement stated that SOG represented and warranted that SOG was the sole owner of the collateral subject to the bank’s security interest. Beginning in 2004, Kraken Investments Limited (Kraken) consigned a Sandro Botticelli painting (the Botticelli) to SOG. The consignment agreement required SOG to showcase and use its best efforts to sell the Botticelli, but Kraken remained the Botticelli’s owner unless the Botticelli was sold. The Botticelli was not sold, and the consignment expired in June 2007. Subsequently, authorities learned that Salander had been defrauding investors and consignors. SOG then entered bankruptcy proceedings in which many parties, including Kraken, asserted claims of ownership to art in SOG’s possession. The bankruptcy court assigned a working group to resolve the art-ownership disputes. In January 2010, the bankruptcy court confirmed a liquidation plan for SOG and established a liquidation trust. Pursuant to the liquidation plan, the bank transferred the security interest it had purportedly obtained in the Botticelli under the loan agreement to the liquidation trust. The working group subsequently found that the Botticelli was a bankruptcy-estate asset and could not be returned to Kraken. Kraken challenged that determination in the bankruptcy court. The liquidation trustee asserted that it had a superior right to the Botticelli because the trustee had been assigned the liens the bank obtained under the loan agreement. Kraken asserted that the loan agreement had not given the bank a lien on consigned goods. The bankruptcy court found that the loan agreement gave the bank a lien on the Botticelli, and Kraken appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Briccetti, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership