‘Taj Mahal’ Pendant Back at the Center of Dispute

New York--The dispute around the late Elizabeth Taylor’s “Taj Mahal” diamond necklace is back.

Taylor’s estate sued Christie’s in federal court in 2015 in a case that centered on the cancelled sale of the diamond. It was dismissed after both parties agreed to try to settle privately.

But on Thursday, co-trustees for the Sothern Trust, the late actress’s trust, filed another lawsuit in the Supreme Court in Manhattan against the New York-based auction house.

After Taylor’s death in 2011, her estate tasked Christie’s with selling some of her most prized possessions through auctions held in both New York and London.

According to the latest lawsuit, following the sales, Christie’s “failed to abide by its contractual obligations under the consignment agreement and blatantly disregarded its fiduciary duties to the trust.”

The auction house, the lawsuit claims, cancelled the sales of certain auction items without notifying or discussing it with the trust.

The primary dispute on which this new lawsuit is centered again is the sale of the “Taj Mahal,” a heart-shaped, table-cut diamond pendant that was the third highest-grossing lot of the auction.

(The diamond is inscribed with the name Nur Jahan, the wife of Mughal emperor Shah Jahangir. It is believed to eventually have been a gift from the ruler to his son, who became Emperor Shah Jahan and later built the Taj Mahal in memory of his late wife Mumtaz Mahal, hence the stone’s name.)

Taylor’s husband, actor Richard Burton, bought it from Cartier and gave the jewel to Taylor for her 40th birthday. At the record-setting auction of Taylor’s massive jewelry collection in 2011, Christie’s sold it to an anonymous buyer for $8.8 million.

Months after the auction ended, the buyer asked Christie’s to cancel the sale of the stone and give him back his money because he believed that the diamond did not actually belong to Emperor Shah Jahan.

But in its lawsuit, the trust claims that Christie’s never guaranteed the age of the diamond in its pre-auction materials, instead only saying it was an “Indian diamond,” a fact with which the buyer does not dispute.

The trust added in the suit that claims made outside of that vocabulary were done by Christie’s representatives during public appearances, which still does not warrant cancellation of the sale.

“Despite facing no credible threat of legal liability, Christie’s nonetheless rescinded the sale of the diamond. In doing so, Christie’s not only deviated from