'Damage unlikely to be permanent'

The court verdict has ended the biggest scandal to shake the seemingly gentlemanly world of the leading auction houses.

While those in the know have long suspected that the Big Two have "colluded " for years - long before this anti-trust case was set in motion - to ensure some sort of parity of charges and an equal division of prominent clients, the US State Department's investigation exposed these shadowy rumours as reality. The whole mildly unsavoury business begs one big question: why did the powers that be at Sotheby's and Christie's embark on a course that was illegal in the US, but not in Britain, and doomed to backfire?

One has to presume they believed they would never be caught, but surely Sotheby's in particular, as an American company, knew full well that the hounds in pursuit of the US's beloved anti-trust laws are ferocious and tenacious and that the glamour of the art world would prove as irresistible to the Justice Department as it is to the world's press.

This really is a case of a game not being worth the candle. Senior figures colluded because cut-throat competition was in grave danger of destroying businesses famous for their high turnovers and low profit margins.

What they succeeded in doing was bring about fines to both houses amounting to more than £500 million and undermining the integrity of their respective businesses.

It is unlikely that the damage is permanent, not least because even as the scandal was unfolding collectors continued to sell and buy at both. Moreover, many of the most senior people in both companies, not least in London, were clearly not involved in these conspiracies allowing the opportunity to make a fresh start. I suspect the business practices at the houses, both ethically and financially, are now much more correct than they have ever been in the past.