Plumb v. Casey
Plumb v. Casey, No. 13-1137 (Bankr. Dist. Ma. filed May 13, 2013).
Although in a different jurisdiction and somewhat different underlying circumstances, this case has parallels with several New York cases that were filed against Salander O’Reilly Galleries following its demise. In this case of first impression, the interpretation of the 2006 amendment to Massachusetts General Law (M.G.L.) Chapter 104 was at issue. Specifically, the court addressed whether a “consignor” under the statute was required to submit a written statement of delivery to establish a consignment agreement, and, consequently, whether artists who had understood their works to have been “consigned” to a gallery for purpose of sale could re-claim their works in the event of the gallery’s insolvency. It is one of many recent cases addressing the rights of consignors in the event of a gallery’s insolvency.