Journalist Settles Libel Suit with Art Restorer

Patrick Bahners, photo by Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung

Journalist Patrick Bahners has settled his part of a libel lawsuit with Canadian art restorer Peter Paul Biro who alleged Bahners published untrue statements about his methods of art authentication. 

Bahners became entangled in a massive libel case stemming from a July 12, 2010 16,000-word profile in New Yorker magazine, written by David Grann, in which Peter Paul Biro and his family of art conservators from Montreal, Canada, are depicted as criminals, according to the lawsuit. He is the second defendant to settle out of court with Biro. 

Biro launched his lawsuit in June, 2011 in US District Court, Southern District of New York, against Grann and New Yorker magazine's parent company, Conde Nast, who filed motions to have the case dismissed. But in August, 2012 Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered that statements in the article potentially had defamatory implication and he refused to dismiss claims based on those statements. Biro is seeking $20-Million from the defendants.

Bahners penned his follow-up article a full year after the judge's decision, and shortly after publication in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Bahners was added to the lawsuit.

The details of the settlement were not made public. But one analyst said it marks a turning point in a case which may have grave implications for the chief defendants David Grann and Conde Nast. 

Veteran investigative journalist Harry Moses, who for years produced CBS' 60-Minutes, said Grann made a mistake by relying on a bad source for his article in the New Yorker. "I think [David Grann] relied too much on Theresa Franks. She's been largely discredited," Moses said.

In a 2011 interview, Franks, an art dealer from Arizona, claimed she was the "catalyst" for the article, a claim Grann neither confirmed nor denied, but has been cited by legal experts as the defendants' "Achilles' heel" in the lawsuit.  

Franks published scathing articles on her websites and blog for years, damaging Biro's reputation as an innovator and pioneer in the field of painting analysis, particularly of forensic evidence, that may tie a painting to the artist's hand, or to that of a forger. 

Franks hired a fingerprint examiner, Patrick Wertheim, to "double-check" Biro's methods. Wertheim produced a report for Franks which, together with Franks' articles, insinuated that Biro fabricated fingerprints by means of a rubber stamp and then planted them on the artwork, something David Grann further insinuated in his New Yorker article.

Grann's article set off a bit of a media feeding-frenzy, and it wasn't long before other articles appeared, stating Biro was "a forger" and that his family had done "jail time". None of the articles produced any proof for such claims.

Shortly after Biro filed his lawsuit, many articles which portrayed Biro badly were retracted.  Manhattan Media published a public apology and the Daily Beast issued a correction.  Based on the New Yorker article, Business Insider had included Biro on a list of "Nine of the Biggest Art Forgeries of All Time." After the suit was filed, they suddenly removed Biro from the list and renamed it, "Eight of the Biggest Art Forgeries of All Time." One media outlet clearly and publicly admitted they misinterpreted the Grann article and apologized, and other articles simply vanished.

Since Franks became a defendant in the case, her venomous articles on Biro have completely disappeared from the internet, in effect, retracting all of the claims that Grann so heavily relied upon for his article. Her numerous art-related websites are all gone too, and the only thing that remains on her former blog is an advisory notice claiming all information on the site has been "rescinded, deleted and destroyed." 

And Franks' fingerprint expert, Patrick Wertheim, who Grann also relied upon for his article, is currently under investigation by the International Association for Identification (IAI) for evidence tampering, evidence fabrication and obstruction of justice in a murder case. The results of which are still pending.

Another primary source for Grann's article, Marion Hendler, claimed her late husband invested with Biro’s father in a painting, and insinuated it was switched with a cheap copy. However, according to court records, Biro and his father’s estate sued her for libel but she never appeared in court to face Biro, and defaulted, thus legally admitting to the falsity of her claims.

Judge Oetken's ruling came just weeks after a hugely embarrassing scandal involving New Yorker magazine journalist Jonah Lehrer, who resigned after admitting plagiarism and also fabricated Bob Dylan quotes in his best-selling book, Imagine.

Biro would not comment on the case. Likewise, his attorney, Richard A. Altman, would not comment except to confirm that a settlement had been reached and that his client had withdrawn his claim in February, 2013. Neither Bahners nor his attorney could be reached for a statement.

NEW YORKER MAGAZINE DENIED MOTION TO DISMISS ART EXPERT'S DEFAMATION CASE

FEDERAL JUDGE DENIES

NEW YORKER MAGAZINE'S

MOTION TO DISMISS ART EXPERT'S

DEFAMATION LAWSUIT
*Magazine's key source denied a motion
*Plaintiff to add more defendants

*Federal Judge says article is "capable of defamatory meaning".

*$20-Million case ruling comes two weeks after Jonah Lehrer scandal.

August 9, 2012

In an historic and devastating blow to New Yorker magazine—which for years has touted "ironclad" fact-checking methods, a federal judge has denied the publication's motion to fully dismiss an art expert's $20-Million defamation lawsuit.

US District Court Judge J. Paul Oetken's 95-page ruling means the case will go to trial unless New Yorker magazine and nine other defendants settle with plaintiff Peter Paul Biro. 

The lawsuit stems from a July 12, 2010 feature article written by a New Yorker journalist, David Grann, in which Biro and his family--art conservators from Montreal, Canada, are depicted as criminals, according to the lawsuit.

Grann's article set off a media frenzy, spawning follow-up articles which painted Biro as a "forger" and that his family had done "jail time," all of which were later found to be untrue.

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, many articles which portrayed Biro negatively were retracted.  Manhattan Media published a public apology and the Daily Beast issued a correction.  Based on the New Yorker article, Business Insider had included Biro on a list of "Nine of the Biggest Art Forgeries of All Time." After the suit was filed, they quickly removed Biro from the list and renamed it, "Eight of the Biggest Art Forgeries of All Time." One media outlet clearly and publicly admitted they misinterpreted the Grann feature and apologized, while some of the spin-off articles just disappeared off the internet. 

In his ruling, Judge Oetken stated that Grann's article is "reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning." He also called into question whether Grann's article "constitutes a fair and true report" on Biro.

Oetken also approved consideration of special damages for Biro on "claims for injurious falsehood". Other claims by Biro were dismissed by the court. But the case will move forward, and as one legal expert said, "settlements will come pouring in."

Biro issued a brief statement following the judge's decision. "I am pleased that the court has ruled that some of the statements in the article can be considered defamatory.  I look forward to proceeding to discovery and to determining the case on its merits."

The New Yorker also issued a statement. "We are gratified that Judge Oetken has already dismissed the vast bulk of Mr. Biro's claims, and we are confident that we will prevail."

But perhaps the statement is too little too late for the New Yorker. One defendant has already chosen to settle. According to U.S. federal court records, publisher Dan Rattiner reached a settlement arrangement with Biro, the details and amount of which are undisclosed. Biro sought $1 million from Rattiner.

In addition to Grann, the suit names as defendants Conde Nast, a division of Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc., Louise Blouin Media, Global Fine Art Registry LLC, Theresa Franks, Business Insider, Inc., Gawker Media LLC, International Council of Museums, Georgia Museum of Art, and Paddy Johnson. 

In a separate ruling, Judge Oetken denied defendant Theresa Franks a motion to dismiss based on jurisdiction. Franks, a resident of Arizona, claims to have been a "catalyst" to the Grann article.

Biro also won a ruling which allows him to file a supplemental complaint to include additional defendants if necessary.

Biro's work was the subject of the 2006 film documentary, Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?, which follows the journey of Ms. Teri Horton, a retired trucker who bought a purported Pollock painting for $5.00 in a thrift shop, and her attempt to have it authenticated. 

A fingerprint on the back of the canvas was first checked out by a San Bernardino, California police chief. Then, years later, Horton hired Biro to analyze the fingerprint. The print matched one on a can of paint in the Pollock studio and on an undisputed, cataloged Pollock painting hanging in the Tate Modern. 

Judge Oetken's ruling comes just weeks after a hugely embarassing scandal involving New Yorker magazine journalist Jonah Lehrer, who resigned after admitting he fabricated Bob Dylan quotes in his best-selling book, Imagine.

Click to see Judge Oetken's ruling