Update from PDN: For Annie Leibovitz, a Fuzzy Financial Picture

Well, I hadn't visited PDN in a while, but found this article about Annie Leibovitz's current situation and am eagerly awaiting the verdict and resolution in the coming weeks as her deadline for repayment of all loans approaches.

I knew from the previous NYT article that ACG was suing Getty, but I had not realized at the time that Annie Leibovitz was also named in the claim. I am a little confused, ACG loaned Ms. Leibovitz $24 million last year, however, they were in talks of selling her archive to Getty claiming the value of her images was around $50million? SO that would have paid off all of Annie's loans, and I suppose with ACG as the acting agent, they would get a little off the top for the sale? (Apparently, Getty lowballed with a $15 million offer, and negotiations ended.) But if Ms. Leibovitz's archive is worth $50 million as ACG claims, then they would not be able to obtain the entire archive for collateral, as that would be more than she owes. Collateral is to cover debt, correct...so now I'm totally confused, because if ACG is accurate in its claims of her archive's worth, then by default they could not possibly gain full control of her archive.

I suppose I need to look into the law a little more, as I know nothing about it. Perhaps until the collateral is liquidated, during that time there would be an opportunity to control all of her images. Seems convoluted.

Alright, I did a little googling and came up with this:

It is important to note, that the lender can use the collateral only to regain the money owed by the borrower (capital and interest). If the property (real estate, car) will be sold, the lender will get only the sum owed to him by the borrower. The rest will go to the borrower, who was previously the owner of this property. For example - if you owe $1 mln to the bank and your house secures the loan, and you are not able to pay the installments any more, the bank can take over the house and sell it. But, if the house will be sold for $1.5 mln, the bank will take only $1 mln and the rest ($0.5 mln) will come back to you.

Found here

Annie, how did this happen? In another article I read that a lighting company filed a complaint as Ms. Leibovitz owed over $200,000 to the company. What? Doesn't she own her equipment, she's been in the biz for like 4 decades, and don't her employers pay for any technical needs like lighting... what I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall in Vanity Fair's office so I could snoop through all her contracts and dealings.