PEC Update, November 14, 2007

On November 8, Judge Leyburn Mosby, Jr. ruled in favor of the Motion for Injunction to stop the sale of four paintings from the Maier Museum and against the College's efforts to have the complaint dismissed. We are delighted that the Court recognizes the importance of the art to the Lynchburg and R-MWC community and understands the potential harm to the public interest should these charitable assets be sold. This was a big win for all of us fighting to preserve Randolph-Macon Woman's College - the Judge recognized both that the plaintiffs have standing to bring the complaint and that the case has sufficient merit to proceed to a full hearing. This hearing will occur sometime later this year or early next year. However, although we won on the 8th, the art is still in danger. 

What does this decision really mean?

The College announced that they would immediately appeal the injunction to the Supreme Court of Virginia and they did so yesterday. They also announced that they would proceed with the sale of the paintings - even though the case was not dismissed and thus their right to sell the art and their assertion that it is merely a "financial asset" is still in doubt. The College also went back to Judge Mosby and asked him to impose a strict timeframe on the funding of a $10 million bond that was part of his Thursday ruling.

Yesterday afternoon Judge Mosby heard both the College's motion to require that the bond be paid this week and a motion from the art defenders asking that the bond be removed or reduced to a nominal sum. Unfortunately, Judge Mosby granted the College's request - so the $10 million bond must be posted by 4:30PM tomorrow (November 15) or the injunction will be lifted.

The imposition of the bond and the bond amount are being appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia. We believe there are valid reasons why a bond should not be required and the art should be protected until these related lawsuits are decided. We will let you know the Supreme Court's decision as soon as we hear.

Why can't we raise the money for the bond?

There are two important things to know about this injunction bond. First, the bond was set to ensure that if the lawsuit proved unsuccessful and the College could prove they suffered a financial loss from not selling the paintings right now, there would be funds available to pay the College for these losses. Second, the people trying to protect the art have to be able to show right now that they have the resources to pay the full amount of the bond, even though the full amount may never be required and does not need to be paid up front.

The College asked for a $25 million bond. The Judge reduced this amount and imposed a $10 million bond instead. What this means is that in order for the temporary injunction to take effect - for the art to be withheld from sale until the lawsuits are decided - the art plaintiffs have to demonstrate that they have the capacity to "make good" on the full $10 million of possible damages should a payout become necessary. That doesn't mean that the College would necessarily receive $10 million - should they win the suit they would have to prove that they lost $10 million by not selling the paintings at the auctions this November.

As in this case, when people seeking an injunction don't have the full bond amount at hand, a bond company will provide a "surety" or guarantee to the Court that the people have the necessary resources to pay the potential damages. The bond company requires an upfront fee (anywhere from 1% - 10% of the bond amount) to provide this guarantee to the Court but in the end the plaintiffs pay any damages. While it is possible that the supporters of R-MWC and the Maier Museum could have raised a 1% fee within a week, neither the plaintiffs nor PEC as a non-profit corporation can demonstrate the capacity to pay the full bond amount through assets or other financial measures.

Will the four paintings be sold?

Clearly the art sale is tainted at this point. The unethical and unprincipled way the art sale was arranged and implemented by the College cast the first cloud on the auction. The universal condemnations by the professional art community added to the taint. The successful motion for injunction that recognized the potential harm to the public interest merely solidified the uncertain future of these paintings.

According to Anthony Troy, a former Virginia Attorney General and one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, "If the plaintiffs prevail on the merits of the case next year - and it is shown that the College holds the art for the benefit of the citizens of Lynchburg and students - then further litigation focusing on the return of the art could commence with those that purchase these paintings."

We hope that Christie's and the College recognize that this controversy means that to proceed with the auction of these important works is both unwise and unethical -- and that they voluntarily stay the sale until all litigation is settled in Spring 2008.

Donations

We need contributions to fund these ongoing legal efforts to preserve Randolph-Macon Woman's College. We currently need $50,000 simply to pay our outstanding art litigation commitments, including the appeal of the injunction bond to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Donations can be sent to:

Preserve Educational Choice, Inc.
P.O. Box 29612
Richmond, VA 23242

Please note on the check that it is for the "Art Defense Fund" if you want your donation to go to the art efforts. PayPal donations can be made through our website.

As always, we are grateful to each and every supporter working to preserve Randolph-Macon Woman's College. The past month has dealt the Board of Trustees several blows - the Attorney General filed a brief in the charitable trust case that supports our point of view on standing, the national media has taken notice of the College's questionable actions, and Judge Mosby has ruled that, contrary to the assertions of the trustees, there is a public interest after all in the art at the Maier Museum. We don't want to litigate - like all of you, we would much rather be putting our time, money, and energy into restoring Randolph-Macon Woman's College. We stand ready to do that as soon as the Board of Trustees is willing to come to the table to talk about our alma mater's future.

Vita Abundantior,

PEC Board

Diane U. Montgomery (R-MWC '85)
Carol Curcio Lang (R-MWC '68)
Anne Yastremski (R-MWC '05)
Madeline Miller (R-MWC '66)
Chantel Sheaks (R-MWC '91)

PS - The hearing in the Louise Jordan Smith Trust case that was scheduled for November 15 before Judge Mosby has been postponed. We will let you know when it is rescheduled.

Return to PEC Updates