{"id":50329,"date":"2024-01-24T09:00:25","date_gmt":"2024-01-24T14:00:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/?p=50329"},"modified":"2024-01-23T21:26:49","modified_gmt":"2024-01-24T02:26:49","slug":"the-orlando-basquiats-oma-drops-charges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2024\/01\/the-orlando-basquiats-oma-drops-charges\/","title":{"rendered":"The Orlando Basquiats: OMA Drops Charges"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"An<\/a>

Untitled (Boxer)<\/em>, one of the Orlando Basquiat forgeries<\/p><\/div>\n

The situation at the Orlando Museum of Art (OMA) has progressed again. Last time we checked in, disgraced former director Aaron de Groft countersued OMA<\/a> for wrongful termination, defamation, and breach of contract. This was in response to\u00a0<\/span>OMA’s lawsuit against De Groft for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy<\/span><\/a>. Originally, OMA brought its lawsuit against De Groft and the consortium of investors that owns the twenty-five allegedly fake Basquiat paintings at the center of this scandal. However, OMA has dropped its suit against the owners and is now focusing solely on De Groft.<\/span><\/p>\n

The museum administration decided to focus just on De Groft mainly to cut down on legal costs. Leaked minutes of a museum board meeting reveal that the museum is now facing a deficit of $1 million. So, of course, it\u2019s understandable that they would cut costs wherever they can. The museum\u2019s financial troubles can be linked to the Basquiat scandal. The museum\u2019s chief executive, Cathryn Mattson, explained that OMA has had a 25% increase in unbudgeted expenses, mainly hiring \u201ca legal defense team\u201d and \u201ccrisis communication professionals\u201d to help the museum deal with the scandal\u2019s fallout. With the scandal still fresh on everyone\u2019s minds, local donors and philanthropists have proven hesitant or even resistant to help OMA with their financial troubles.<\/span><\/p>\n

The loss of donors shows that OMA is not only facing a \u201ccrisis of liquidity\u201d, but also a \u201ccrisis of confidence\u201d. This is partially because the museum administration is keeping everything on such a tight leash. Museum staff who gave statements to the press had to do so anonymously since they had been threatened with termination should they do so. Other museum staff have criticized the museum\u2019s practice of firing or otherwise penalizing any employees who call attention to other forms of \u201ccorruption and incompetence\u201d at OMA. Fiorella Escalon, a member of the museum\u2019s Acquisition Trust board, was removed from her position allegedly for voicing her criticism of the current museum board and starting <\/span>the Save OMA campaign<\/span><\/a>. Escalon\u2019s criticisms call attention to the institutional culture that allowed the Basquiat scandal to unfold in the first place.<\/span><\/p>\n

OMA has already spent nearly $589,000 on legal expenses and crisis management, earmarking an additional $317,425 in its current budget to pay the hired firms. The museum also anticipates\u00a0<\/span>another $500,000 in legal costs<\/span><\/a>\u00a0for when their suit goes to trial in October 2025. With increased costs and fleeing donors, the museum will find it increasingly difficult to manage other expenses, mainly a new roof and HVAC system estimated to cost $6.8 million.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here are links to our previous updates on the Orlando Basquiat scandal:<\/span><\/p>\n