Comments on: Annie Leibovitz’s exit strategy

By: Jaromir Svozilik

Jaromir Svozilik — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:39:55 +0000

- MAKE MONEY NOT ART — MAKE LOVE NOT ART -

By: Oona O'Cinnsealach

Oona O'Cinnsealach — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:58:40 +0000

I think there is another option, which I have arrived at after reading the story about and terms of this loan: Leibovitz can be declared to be NOT IN HER RIGHT MIND when she made this deal and therefore non compos mentis. Perhaps her legal team could work with that.

By: tom

tom — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:03:53 +0000

Your math wrong. Annie walks away with the original 24 million plus another 18 million … equals 52 millionEnough to get by on, as long as she didnt invest in madoff with the original 24 mil

By: Lara

Lara — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:44:32 +0000

Well, what can I say, with her junkie mentality, she has never changed..Annie brought this on herself , years of abusing her assistants and reckless attitudes to others, so she dug her own grave Why should anyone take pity on her? She might want to get closer to God for starters and attempt to turn her life around so that her beautiful children will have a decent future.

By: Bob Montgomery

Bob Montgomery — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:03:20 +0000

“Leibovitz would be left with just $18 million, or less.”Cry me a river. Sure, it sounds like she is getting royally screwed, but when the outcome of getting royally screwed is to be left rich and famous, then I have zero sympathy.

By: Vincent

Vincent — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:05:59 +0000

If the punchline here is that an artist who lived for years like a captain of industry, royalty or a Russian oligarch, spent a gazillion and a half when she only had one gazillion because she wasn’t willing to control her spending, and then ends up with “only $18 million” after her assets are liquidated, well, it’s just a little hard to get all that worked up about it. And I suspect that a bankruptcy judge who spends large parts of his or her time seeing destitute folks struggling to pay their car loans may not be all that sympathetic.

By: zach

zach — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:41:20 +0000

Um,”Art Capital’s Ian Peck told me in June, talking about his business in general rather than Leibovitz in particular, that his “commissions and fees are designed to be prohibitive” in the event that a borrower defaults on her loan”Smacks of an admission that this is a penalty clause. Courts generally won’t enforce penalty clauses. Leibovitz should breach.

By: a

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:07:44 +0000

“One is that Goldman Sachs, which owns part of the loan, takes pity on her”ROTFL. Vampires don’t show pity when they smell blood.

By: Observer

Observer — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 02:52:37 +0000

Uh, and we care about this because…?

By: siobhan westapher

siobhan westapher — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 01:44:24 +0000

Art Capital will go down in history as a creative thief. Annie keep your vision.it is yours not a banks.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 01:01:54 +0000

Art Capital bills itself as “the only independent source of art lending” …Surely as Art Capital drags its own reputation through the mud over its handling of such a famous person, the time is ripe for other firms to unseat them.

By: Ledbury

Ledbury — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:23:20 +0000

This just makes the sympathy for her all the more confounding. If this loan is essentially a mortgage that is fully covered by the property, then the whole intellecutal property thing is kind of a red herring and she is no different from any other homeowner who bought too big. Nobody wants to lose their home, but she could have sold and been free and clear to live a very nice lifestyle she could afford. How many people would love that option nowadays?

By: Liza Heider

Liza Heider — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:20:32 +0000

What a mess. Is Annie in denial? I’m just trying to think we’re her head was at when she signed this agreement. What’s up with her not letting the realtors into her properties?