More than 40 British artists, including Turner Prize winners, have accused the Artist Pension Trust (APT) of operating an unlawful business and are demanding the return of their artworks amid the company’s winding-up process. The dispute centers on APT’s intended closure of its London pool, where artists had collectively contributed pieces under the promise of long-term financial security.
Founded in 2004, APT sought to provide artists with a mutual assurance programme by pooling artworks for sale over time, in exchange for a share of the proceeds. At its peak, the trust held nearly 10,000 works from some 1,300 artists worldwide, including approximately 200 in its London pool. Under the trust’s original arrangement, artists would provide 20 works over 20 years, receiving 40% of net sales, while 32% would be redistributed among the artist pool and 28% retained by APT.
In May, APT informed participants in its London pool of plans to terminate the scheme. It proposed a termination agreement allowing artists to reclaim 70% of their contributed works, while retaining the remaining 30% to cover winding-up expenses. Several artists described the offer as a significant betrayal. Céline Condorelli, an artist involved in the scheme, criticized the split as a major breach of trust.
Legal counsel representing the artists, Jon Sharples of Howard Kennedy, said many had believed the trust would provide financial support into their later years. However, the winding-up has introduced complications. The entity named in the termination agreement, APT London Inc., was deregistered in the British Virgin Islands in 2015 for failure to pay annual fees and subsequently dissolved. The trust’s current ownership is reportedly dispersed among multiple unnamed shareholders, excluding APT co-founder Moti Shinberg.
APT’s lawyer handling the dissolution, Guillermo Malm Green of Bron & Salas, acknowledged the challenges faced by artists but maintained that the company was committed to an efficient and equitable resolution. Malm Green stated that APT had been in the process of winding down its global operations for two years, starting with its U.S.-based artist pools. He also asserted that APT’s structure did not classify it as a collective investment scheme under applicable UK regulations.
The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) confirmed that APT is not regulated by the authority and, to the FCA’s knowledge, operates outside the UK. Several artists reported receiving no payments from APT over the duration of their contracts. Malm Green added that although tens of millions of dollars had been invested in APT, none of the investors—including Shinberg—had been repaid. Only some artists have received any funds, he said.
Under the terms of the proposed agreement, artists declining to recover their works would risk their destruction. Opposing this, the artists’ collective rejected the termination proposal, arguing that APT’s operations were unlawful and thus unenforceable under original contracts. They insist on the return of all contributed artworks along with compensation for any losses incurred. To safeguard their pieces against unauthorized sales, the artists plan to register their works with the Art Loss Register, a database used to track stolen or disputed art.