Chaim’s big scoop today about a lawsuit that will subpoena GIA about possible“certifigate” communication it had with New York sightholder Julius Klein is certainly something we’ll be watching closely.
GIA’s response, through spokeswoman Laura Simonton: “We received the subpoena on Tuesday, and are reviewing it.” For what it’s worth, I hope GIA does not to fight the subpoena. I understand there are legal restrictions on what they can say currently. But this is a request for information from the court. If GIA really believes in the truth coming out, they will reveal what they have when asked. (And, I should note, they could have absolutely nothing in this instance.)
For most of the day, I’ve been going through the papers on this case, which involves Julius Klein being sued by an Ohio jeweler. (Details are in Chaim’s story, as well as in this local publication.) One of the interesting side questions people have had over the years is who owned Vivid Collection, the now-defunct target of that infamous lawsuit.Vivid seems to have had a multitude of owners. Lev Leviev had said he had an interest in it (which he recently told WWD was minor), though that seems to have been toward the company’s end.
And now the ownership of Vivid has become a minor issue in the court case between the Ohio jeweler and Julius Klein. The papers include an assertion by the lawyer for Julius Klein Diamonds: “[Julius Klein Diamonds] has never owned, and does not own, Vivid Collection.”This is seemingly contradicted by a deposition in an unrelated case dug up by the opposing lawyers. In it, Martin Klein, a Julius Klein employee, says: “I am also a member of Boxwood Venture LLC. Boxwood LLC is one of three members of defendant Vivid Collection.” The other owners, the affidavit said, were Moty Spector (Vivid’s executive chairman) and Jerty International Corporation (which I confess to never having heard of).
This is, in turn, countered by Julius Klein’s lawyers …
Mr. Klein, who is one of JKD’s members, was a member of Boxwood, which in turn was one of three members of Vivid. Thus, all that plaintiff’s proffered exhibits show is that one of JKD’s members was a partial indirect (through Boxwood) partial owner of Vivid. In no way whatsoever does that contradict JKD’s assertion that it does not own, and never owned Vivid.
Not that that clears things up …