Over the course of nearly four decades, Barbara Guggenheim and Abigail Asher cultivated an elite reputation within the global art world, not merely advising but actively buying and selling extraordinary masterpieces on behalf of an enviable clientele. By their own account, this circle of patrons has included international powerhouses such as Sony and Coca-Cola, as well as Hollywood luminaries like Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise—figures whose patronage alone underscores the extraordinary level of trust these advisors once commanded. Their firm, Guggenheim Asher Associates, for decades epitomized the glamour, ambition, and high financial stakes of art-world dealmaking.
Yet now, the partnership that was once celebrated as harmonious and lucrative has devolved into a bitterly contested legal battleground. After working together for thirty-seven years, these former allies are now adversaries, embroiled in a caustic courtroom dispute that exposes not only deep personal acrimony but also unsettling claims of financial impropriety and professional misconduct. What began as the collapse of a business relationship has escalated sharply into dueling lawsuits filled with mutual accusations—each partner painting the other as reckless, dishonest, and exploitative.
The litigation, which resides in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, has already become extraordinarily complex. Although the next hearing—originally slated for a Thursday—has been postponed until October 16, legal observers note that the sheer scale of the filings reveals the ferocity of this feud. More than one hundred motions, notices, and judicial determinations have been submitted to the public docket, creating a sprawling and convoluted record of the dispute. However, despite this extensive public paper trail, it is understood that much of the conflict will unfold behind closed doors. Both sides acknowledge that sensitive materials, including thousands of pages of evidence related to multimillion-dollar art transactions, will need to remain sealed or heavily redacted to safeguard confidential client relationships and financial arrangements.
Central to this labyrinthine litigation are two rival lawsuits wherein each woman accuses the other not merely of financial negligence but of betraying both trust and friendship, dismantling what was once a thriving partnership. The allegations are severe: each claims the other misappropriated commissions, disregarded client interests, and diverted company assets toward lavish personal indulgences. The accusations read less like routine contractual disputes and more like the implosion of a long, combustible personal bond intertwined with fortune, art, and prestige.
Guggenheim struck first, filing a lawsuit in August 2024. In her complaint, she characterizes her former partner’s financial habits in scathing terms, alleging that Asher brazenly treated their shared enterprise as a kind of “personal piggybank.” Guggenheim claims that Asher diverted approximately $650,000 to fund an array of personal expenses ranging from extravagant restaurant meals to grocery bills, costly home renovations, and even overseas excursions. One particularly vivid episode described in the filings involves a $19,500 roof repair on Asher’s home. When the expenditure was challenged, Guggenheim contends that Asher reacted explosively, allegedly responding with the rhetorical question: “You don’t expect me to have rain pouring on my head, do you?”
Asher, refusing to remain silent, retaliated decisively in July with her own countersuit, flipping the narrative back onto Guggenheim. In this filing, Asher charged her former business partner with misusing company resources for equally indulgent personal outlays. The countersuit lists examples ranging from extravagant vacations and luxury automobiles to private expenditures like funeral costs. Among these, Asher highlights a $12,500 African safari, $3,000 spent on dance lessons, and an astonishing $400,000 allegedly expended on acquiring and maintaining two Bentley vehicles. Asher’s claims, though distinct in detail, mirror Guggenheim’s in their broader theme: that each partner treated the partnership’s resources as an extension of personal wealth.
Beneath these disputes over expenses lies an even more serious set of grievances that strike at the heart of the firm’s lucrative operations. Guggenheim, the original founder of Guggenheim Asher Associates in 1981, maintains that Asher, hired in 1987, eventually undermined the enterprise from within. According to Guggenheim’s allegations, Asher established a covert competing entity, the Asher Art Group, and funneled commissions and contracts worth more than $20 million away from the firm. Guggenheim contends that this betrayal was not only disloyal but also deliberate, as Asher is accused of luring away high-profile clients such as the Hess Art Collection and hedge fund magnate Donald Sussman. In one striking detail, Guggenheim insists that in 2024 alone, Asher wrongfully appropriated at least $1.5 million in commission payments that should have been split with her partner—including half a million dollars from the sale of a Jean-Michel Basquiat painting.
Asher, for her part, has characterized these allegations as spurious and retaliatory, dismissing them as nothing more than a desperate attempt by Guggenheim to punish her for leaving the firm and subsequently enjoying greater success. In court filings submitted in January, Asher acknowledged that a number of clients transitioned from Guggenheim Asher Associates to her new venture. However, she argued that this shift was entirely voluntary and emphasized that no contractual non-compete obligations existed to prevent her from founding an independent firm. As her attorneys memorably summarized the point: “Barbara Guggenheim doesn’t own Abigail Asher, though she may think she does.”
By mid-2024, the intensity of the conflict only deepened. In July, Asher escalated matters with a fresh legal assault that contained explosive and deeply personal allegations. She alleged that Guggenheim damaged professional relationships through erratic behavior, including the sending of incoherent or inappropriate communications to both industry figures and current or prospective clients. Even more sensationally, Asher placed Jeffrey Epstein into the narrative, claiming that during the late 1980s Guggenheim encouraged cultivating connections with Epstein and his companion Ghislaine Maxwell as potential gateways to affluent social networks. Beyond that, Asher asserted that Guggenheim engaged in sexual relationships with both clients and dealers, allegedly urging Asher to do the same in order to secure art sales and commissions. Asher’s suit dramatizes these claims with anecdotes, including an instruction for her to “wear leather and be provocative” while pursuing a sale of a Warhol piece in Los Angeles. In one particularly damaging example, she accused Guggenheim of selling actor Sylvester Stallone a painting through an art dealer with whom she was romantically involved, allegedly concealing both the personal relationship and the painting’s reported defects. Stallone himself sued over that transaction in 1989 before ultimately reaching a settlement.
Both camps strenuously deny the charges leveled against them and, through legal counsel, have declined to comment publicly on the ongoing proceedings. Nonetheless, the battle has only grown in bitterness. Guggenheim, in a late-Thursday filing, sought to have Asher’s countersuit dismissed outright, dismissing it as “sensationalized” and “trash-filled.” This new motion also presses the argument that the firm legally belonged solely to Guggenheim, with Asher merely serving as a titular partner without ownership stakes—an argument intended to dismantle Asher’s claims of breach of fiduciary duty. Guggenheim did not mince words, labeling her opponent in court records as “a liar, a fraudster, a bully, and a thief,” and vowing to restore her reputation by holding Asher accountable.
As the October court date approaches, New York Supreme Court Justice Andrew Borrok is expected to hear oral arguments on the motions each side has filed to dismiss the other’s case. Whether viewed as a cautionary tale about fractured partnerships, a window into the high-stakes world of art advisory, or simply as a sensational courtroom saga involving Basquiats, Bentleys, and bruised egos, this dispute continues to captivate the legal and cultural imagination alike.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/basquiats-and-betrayal-legal-brawl-between-celebrity-art-advisors-2025-9
