After whittling away at a novel antitrust case against the Andy Warhol Foundation until there was nothing left, Boies, Schiller & Flexner is on its way to recovering its client's hefty legal tab from an insurer that balked at covering the defense.

When Andy Warhol died, he left hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of his paintings to a foundation that bears his name. The foundation is the exclusive sales agent for the Warhol art it owns. But it's also the arbiter of authenticity for Warhol works it doesn't own. Is that a conflict of interest? A class action filed by the owner of a Warhol self-portrait whose authenticity has twice been denied says it is.

Sure, the Warhol Foundation beat back claims it rigged the authentication process for disputed works by the famous artist. But can it defeat its insurer's assertion that its defense costs aren't covered?

Cite as: Chevron Corp. v. Berlinger, 10-1918-cv(L), NYLJ 1202478063888, at *1 (2d Cir., Decided January 13, 2011)Before: Leval, B.D. Parker, and Hall, C.JJ.

Years before the phrase "toxic assets" became a cliche, the shareholders of a mortgage company called Household International filed a class action in Chicago federal district court, alleging that Household had engaged in "a massive predatory lending scheme" that inflated the company's financials. The trial in the case begins this week.