Tag: Nazi Spoliation

Massive Restitution Auction


Carl Vogel of the New York Times discusses the planned 3-stage auction of a portion of a group of 170 old master paintings recently returned to the heirs of Jacques Goudstikker. Over at the ArtLaw blog, Donn Zaretsky has more.

Goudstikker was a prominent art dealer who quickly fled Amsterdam in 1940. His successors, Mrs. von Saher and her two daughters, all currently Connecticut residents, are planning an international exhibition of many of the works, including some which will not be part of the auction. Last year’s settlement with the Dutch government marked the culmination of an 8-year legal battle. The three auctions will be in April in New York, in July in London, and finally in November in Amsterdam. One work which could fetch between $3-5 million is this painting, Ferry Boat With Cattle on the River Vecht Near Nijenrode by Salomon van Ruysdael.

One of the heirs, Charlene von Saher said the traveling exhibition would reveal to the world “a historical injustice put right.” Certainly, Goudstikker lost his collection of art, and the restitution may be correcting a historical wrong. Make no mistake though, the 3 heirs of Goudstikker, their legal counsel, and Christie’s all stand to make a great deal of money. Money is at the heart of restitution, not righting historical wrongs. Consider the recent decision of a Dutch court to award Roelof van Holthe tot Echteen, a lawyer for the 3 heirs, a $10.4 million bank guarantee for his services in working for the restitution.

I notice that in the US, Lawrence Kaye represents von Saher and her two daughters in the dispute. Kaye, along with Howard Spiegler operate a prominent art restitution practice in New York. The two have become celebrities of sorts. I was contacted a couple of weeks ago by Kelly Crow of the Wall Street Journal regarding the reputation of the two in the legal and scholarly community. I’m afraid I was not able to offer her too much for her story. The two have published quite a bit, and have been part of some of the most important art and antiquities cases in recent years. If you want to initiate a restitution action, they are the lawyers to call.

However, I don’t really think that the law looks at individuals as champions of a cause. They are partisan representatives for their client. Their duty is to advocate zealously for their client. Sometimes this might put them on the right side, others it may put them in more objectionable territory. Perhaps it is just my view on this, but I do not consider them “heroes” as such. That said, I would jump at the chance to join their restitution practice after I complete my thesis.

I am of two minds about restitution litigation. On the one hand, I think we should certainly endorse a practice which remedies past historical injustices, and Nazi spoliation is certainly a grave injustice. However, restitution is not always a positive development. I discussed the Schiele litigation earlier this week, which is a very sad situation. Also, these works were displayed at museums in Amsterdam accessible to the public. Is there not a value in having the works displayed there? Also, what is the rationale for returning works from WWII, but not earlier conflicts. Why should the Louvre not be emptied of all the works looted by Napoleon?

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Egon Schiele Litigation

There was an interesting article by Jason Horowitz of the New York Observer this week discussing a lawsuit implicating an Egon Schiele drawing. The dispute involves a Schiele drawing which was owned by a Jewish singer and comedian, Fritz Grunbaum. The works were seized by the Nazis, though the work eventually ended up in the hands of the Nazis. The work at issue is,

a gouache-and-black-crayon drawing of a headless woman clutching her knee. It has meandered for decades through art galleries and private collections before ending up in the middle of a pitched legal battle in New York’s Southern District court, where two of Grünbaum’s heirs—Leon Fischer, a New York stamp dealer, and Milos Vavra, who lives in Prague—have bickered for two years with the drawing’s owner, David Bakalar.

Now, a key Swiss gallery owner is prepared to give a deposition for the first time about the drawing’s provenance, and the presiding judge has expressed his eagerness to resolve the case.

At the same time, the heirs’ New York lawyer, Ray Dowd, is weighing the potentially momentous step of going after the Viennese company Schenker & Co. A.G.

Schenker’s global network of shipping firms amounts to one of the world’s largest logistics companies, with more than 40,000 employees in dozens of countries and more than $10 billion in turnover a year. Mr. Dowd contends that the company, which serves as the Olympic Games’ official movers, stole the drawing and set in motion a litany of fictitious provenances that skip from Vienna to Brussels, from Bern to New York.

The whole factual background is quite detailed, and too intricate to delve into here. The attempt to implicate the wing of the American Schenker Corporation seems quite difficult, especially as it was not formed until 1947.

Though there have certainly been some very positive results in Nazi restitution cases, Picasso’s Femme en Blanc is one example, not all the litigation in this area has produced positive results. Consider the case of another Schiele work, Portrait of Wally (pictured above) which was seized in a civil forfeiture action by federal prosecutors. I’m currently looking at this case for an article I am preparing. Based upon my initial research, it appears as if the work is still locked in storage at the Museum of Modern art. If anyone has any information on the present disposition of the dispute, I would really like to talk about it.

Here is my present understanding of the case. Nearly nine years on, the Portrait of Wally litigation has still not managed to reach the substantive issues of the case, and the work remains in storage in the New York Museum of Modern Art in a tragic echo of the fictional Jarnydyce v. Jarndyce in Charles Dickens’ Bleak House.

At present, a new trial will likely ensue to determine if the painting was stolen under the relevant Austrian law. Some time before 1938, Egon Schiele’s Portrait of Wally was housed in the apartment of a Jewish gallery owner, Lea Bondi Jaray “Bondi”. In April 1938, Friedrich Welz acquired the gallery belonging to Bondi in a process called “aryanization”, in which Jews were forced to sell their property at extremely low prices. Welz was later interned by the US military on suspicion of war crimes, at which point it confiscated his possessions, including the Portrait of Wally. Then, as per its post-war military policy, the military returned the property to the government of Austria, not the individuals to whom the property may have belonged prior to its seizure.

The work then was then mistakenly included in a shipment to another dispossessed family. Bondi, who had since fled to London, then allegedly enlisted Dr. Rudolph Leopold to recover the work from the Belvedere Gallery, the purchaser of the work. Later, Leopold acquired Portrait of Wally for himself from the Belvedere, without Bondi’s knowledge. After later learning of Leopold’s possession of the work, Bondi hired an Austrian attorney, but she was unable to recover the work before her death in 1969. Leopold then sold the work to the Leopold, the museum in which he serves as the Director for life.

The dispute remained dormant until 1997, when the Leopold Museum-Privatstiftung (Leopold) presented the work to the New York Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) for a temporary exhibition. After the exhibition, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office subpoenaed the painting. That subpoena was quashed initially by the New York Court of Appeals because it violated New York’s anti-seizure statute. That same day a Federal Magistrate Judge issued a seizure warrant for the work based on probable cause that Dr. Leopold, had violated the NSPA. The painting has been in storage since the beginning of the dispute in 1998, while the value of the “Portrait of Wally” has soared to between $5 and $10 million.

Many argue this dispute has had a chilling effect on international art loans. As art adviser Ashton Hawkins says,

I think that people who would have previously considered lending now simply don’t consider it…I know from my colleagues who arrange these exhibitions in New York and in other cities that lending to the United States and particularly to New York has been more of a problem than it used to be.

Glenn Lowry, the director of the MoMA had a similar view testifying before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services in 2000, “[Portrait of Wally] had been exhibited around the world for decades and … had been reproduced frequently in books.”

The case stands as a cautionary tale of what can happen if we extend restitution litigation too far. The clear cases of theft and loss are easily handled. But when you talk about a series of owners, some with varying degrees of knowledge and bona fides, I think there is a very grave risk of injustice being done. After all, this kind of litigation has three victims: the original owner, the present good faith possessor, and the public who may not be able to have access to the work. If anyone has any information about where this Portrait of Wally litigation currently stands, I would be delighted to hear it.

(Correction: earlier today I incorrectly labelled the publication as the NY Sun, rather than the actual publication, The New York Observer. I’ve corrected my error.)

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

A Gauguin will stay at the TMA

A Federal District Court in Ohio has denied the ownership claims of 15 people seeking an interest in this work. “Street Scene in Tahiti” by Paul Gauguin was purchased by the Toledo Museum of Art in 1939. It’s current value is estimated at between $10 and $15 million. A copy of the opinion memorandum is available here, courtesy of Harvard Law Professor Harry Martin III. The work belonged to a German Jew, Martha Nathan. In 1937, she left Germany to escape Nazi persecution. The next year, in 1938, Nathan sold this work to a group of art dealers she had known for some years, who were Jews as well. The three purchased the work for 30,000 Swiss Francs, ($6,900 USD). As Judge Zouhary notes, “this sale occurred outside Germany by and between private individuals who were familiar with each other. The Painting was not confiscated or looted by the Nazis; the sale was not at the direction of, nor did the proceeds benefit the Nazi regime.”

The work has hung in the TMA since its purchase in 1939, and Nathan brought other Restitution claims for Nazi persecution, but did not file a claim for the painting. In this case, Judge Zouhary applied Ohio’s 4-year statute of limitation. The trick with limitations periods hinges on when the limitations period has started to run. Under Ohio law, the discovery rule dictates that a claim accrues when a claimant discovers, or should have discovered the injury. This is precisely the kind of claim a statute of limitation is intended to cover. It also highlights that often in these cases, the issue of whether a limitations period has expired will often prove outcome-determinative.

The case is a bit peculiar. Often, it is the claimants who bring suit. However, in this case the Toledo Museum of Art preemptively brought an action last year in a quiet title action. Whether the claimants will seek an appeal remains to be seen, but it seems likely given the value of the work. However, they do not have a great set of facts to work with here. Their ultimate success seems quite unlikely.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

The Monument Men

Today’s New York Times has a piece on a new book financed by retired Texas oilman Robert M. Edsel. The highlight for me are the pictures, published in the new book, which show American GI’s holding up Renaissance masterpieces.
This image shows to soldiers removing a Rembrandt self-portrait from its crate in a salt mine.

The book, called “Rescuing Da Vinci”, tells the story of American and other soldiers, known as the monument men, who recovered works of art looted by the Nazi’s during World War II. Many of these soldiers went on to shape cultural policy in the US after the war. One soldier, Captain James J. Rorimer, went on to become a director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

At the end of the war, a staggering number of works were missing. They had been destined for Hitler’s Fuhrer Museum in Linz, Austria, or on their way to Hermann Goering’s private collection. A number of the works are some I’ve seen on my travels in Europe, including the stained glass from the Strasbourg Cathedral, and Michelangelo’s Bruges Madonna. I had no idea at the time that they had been taken away by invading German forces. The work sounds fascinating, and will surely increase the growing acclaim for what has become known as the greatest generation.

However, not all allied soldiers were quite so altruistic. Soviet forces hauled off a great deal of looted treasures after the war. Also, one American soldier, Joe Meador, took the Quedlinburg Cathedral treasures from a cave they had been hidden in during the war. The Quedlinburg treasures were a collection of gold, silver and bejeweled reliquaries. Meador had been ordered to guard them, but brought them home to Texas instead. His heirs attempted to sell the works around 1990, and federal prosecutors considered bringing a criminal seizure action, but the Meador family agreed to a settlement with the church, and the objects have now been safely returned.

The work sounds very interesting, but we should remember that not all soldiers were quite so charitable as the so-called monument men. Regardless, if the photos in the NYT are any indication, it should be quite an entertaining read.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Venture Capitalists fuelling Nazi restitution claims?


Georgina Adam of the Art Newspaper had an article last week about some of the potential driving forces behind recent repatriation litigation. Pictured here is Gustav Klimt’s “Portrait of Adele Block-Bauer I” (1907), recently repatriated after binding arbitration found Maria Altmann the rightful of this and four other works.

The increasing number of Nazi repatriation claims, and the booming art market lead to the possibility that not all the parties involved are motivated by high-minded ideals. As Federal District Court Judge Jed Rakoff noted during his ruling dismissing a claim over a Picasso, “[art auctions are] all guided by their belief in and beauty…though one might suspect that this is just a fight about money”. In her piece Adam labels some of these opportunistic lawyers “Nazi bounty hunters,”as they are actively seeking war loot. She references Washington lawyer Willi Korte who has been approached by venture capitalists prepared invest $1 million in the hopes that it would lead to a successful restitution claim.

It seems some lawyers are working backwards. They consult art historians about what works might have been looted, and then search for heirs who may want to bring claims. Jost von Trott, a Berlin lawyer, who specializes in this type of research says to the Art Newspaper

It might be that while doing research in these matters, one of the historians [I work with] comes across a further name of another Jewish family who lost property during the Nazi period. If the researchers find another name in the archives, then they or we could contact them as well and see if we can help in recovering lost objects.

Initially, I don’t see anything wrong with the work von Trott describes here. It seems quite a valuable service. Consider though that these firms charge as much as 40% to 50% of the sale price of a work for a successful recovery, while there is no charge if the claim is unsuccessful. Other claims beside the recent Picasso dismissal have been criticized as opportunistic and quickly dismissed as well. A $1.8 billion class action suit was brought by the Association of Holocaust Victims for Restitution of Artwork and Masterpieces against Sotheby’s.

Though there are certainly clear cases where restitution is called for, some of these cases stretch the limits of the law, and are causing unnecessary and costly litigation for owners of these works. The idea of venture capitalists seeking out an attorney and urging him to pursue research on potential claimants strikes me a particularly unpleasant though, and strongly cuts against the whole nature of restitution claims.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

The National Gallery says a work may have been stolen by Nazis

Richard Brooks of the Sunday Times, has a piece yesterday which indicates the National Gallery has a work by Lucas Cranach, “Cupid Complaining to Venus”, which may have been looted by the Nazis. The National Gallery has an entry on its website about the painting here. Elsewhere on the National Gallery website, the work’s provenance is listed as being questionable.

The National Gallery revealed the dubious history of the work after they learned it had been taken from a German Warehouse in 1945 by Patricia Lochridge Hartwell, an American Reporter. Hartwell’s son met with the museum last year. It seems she may have been invited into a German warehouse by American Soldiers in 1945 and allowed to take her pick. It’s yet another example of how spoliation from World War II is still being discovered. The piece does not state why the Gallery has taken so long to come forward with this news. Perhaps it was investigating the claims, or it may have been concerned that the news was about to be broken. The Gallery coming forward in this way of its own volition looks much better than if the questionable provenance was revealed by a claimant.

If a claimant comes forward, the case will be considered by England’s Spoliation Advisory Panel, which was set up in 2000 to evaluate claims for spoliation issues. Often, the panel orders compensation for the claimant, as a measure of compromise, and not the whole work. I would look for Germany to initiate a similar panel in the wake of all the restitution which has caused the loss of art from its museums in recent years.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Met Declines to Exhibit a Grosz


The NY Times’ Robin Pogrebin reported yesterday that the Metropolitan Museum of Art has declined to borrow a work by German Expressionist George Grosz. The work, “The Poet Max Hermann-Neisse” (1927) is the subject of yet another Nazi repatriation dispute. The Met has declined to exhibit the work, and substituted another, because the Grosz estate is contemplating a claim for restitution. The work belongs to the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), and the Grosz estate has been in negotiations with them for three years.

MoMA is one of the many museums which lists provenance information for its works on its website. The provenance for this work is here. The estate claims that the works had to be sold very quickly, and at a very low price because Grosz and his art dealer, Alfred Flechtheim, had to flee Germany because of Nazi persecution. Interestingly, only Flechtheim was Jewish. It was the nature of Grosz’s opinions and art which caused his flight.

Initially, one might wonder how the Grosz estate could have a tenable claim all these years later. The work has been in MoMA’s possession since 1952. Apparently, Grosz saw the work exhibited there in 1958, shortly before his death. Statutes of limitations generally prevent claims from being brought after a period of time. They are based on the policy that as time passes, a fair adjudication of the issues becomes more difficult. New York courts have adopted the demand and refusal rule in interpreting statutes of limitations in the context of illicit art. The rule measures the accrual of a cause of action based on a plaintiff’s actions. To commence an action to recover property from a good faith purchaser, an original owner must prove that the current possessor refused to return the property after a demand by the claimant. See Menzel v. List 22 A.D.2d 647, 253 N.Y.S.2d 43 (1963). Thus it seems that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until 2003, when the Grosz estate first approached MoMA about the return of the work. Thus, in theory at least, they could still bring a restitution claim in time.

However, the substance of that claim seems a bit difficult for the Grosz estate. The works were sold legally (Nicholas Katzenbach, a former attorney general, and an undersecretary of State for the LBJ administration investigated the claim for MoMA and recommended it be rejected), and MoMA would likely have a very good laches defense, which basically serves to protect defendants where a potential plaintiff has unnecessarily delayed bringing a legal action. Also, the value of these works may not be high enough to warrant a protracted legal dispute. A rough estimate I’ve seen thrown around is $3 million. If a work falls short of that standard, bringing a legal claim may not be financially feasible. This work has been estimated at $2 million in today’s market, but there is another work under dispute in MoMA’s collection as well. Of course, the Grosz estate may not be simply concerned with the financial implications of the suit.

Why then did the Met refuse to exhibit the work? It may simply be a matter of not wanting to be associated with the bad publicity. The headline that they are exhibiting a work with a Nazi repatriation issue may have raised an issue that was more controversial than they were willing to take on. However, it seems like the dispute is getting more coverage because of the refusal. In any event, I do not know all of the facts , but the Grosz estate may have a very difficult time prevailing, considering the artist himself saw the work exhibited in 1958 and did not have any misgivings at that point.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Germany Unhappy with the State of Restitution

Apparently, the German Government is considering its options about how best to deal with art sold by or confiscated from Jews under the Nazis the Sydney Morning Herald reports today. This comes in the wake of the record sale at Christie’s last week, in which a number of returned works
helped fuel the market. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has summoned culture ministers and museum directors to discuss overhauling the restitution law. This was a predictable development, especially considering the fabulous sums of money these works are getting on the market.

I postulated last week, that something does not quite seem right about the heirs of these works profitting so handsomely off works which had been hanging in German and Austrian museums. Another factor which may be fueling these discussions, is the news that the City of Berlin is in dire financial straits, and may have to sell some of its cultural buildings or works. When Berlin was essentially two cities, it maintained separate concert halls and museums, but since reunification, the city has too many cultural institutions for its budget. This museum is the Sammlung Berggruen, which houses many impressionist and post-impressionist works.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Sale of Picasso’s "The Absinthe Drinker" may be halted

Christie’s may have a difficult time breaking the single-auction record today. The Art Newspaper reports the auction house is considering removing the work from the sale. Andrew Lloyd Webber was attempting to sell the work, estimated at $60 million, with the proceeds going to charity. The work, from Picasso’s blue period, was also the subject of a Federal District Court Case, dismissed yesterday.

The dismissal has not been published yet on Lexis, but the New York Times has an overview of the claimant’s case. Judge Jed Rakoff dismissed the claims because the federal law dealing with Holocaust restitution was inapplicable in this case. I’m not an expert on holocaust litigation, so I’m not sure which law the NYT is talking about. Apparently, the claimant has a case in New York state court however.

The claims seem tenuous to me at first blush. The plaintiff, Mr. Schoeps, is the heir of Paul von Mendelssohn-Barthold, a wealthy Berlin banker and art collector. He was forced to sell all his paintings as a result of Nazi persecution. The Nazi’s didn’t actually take the painting, but they seized his assets so that he had no choice but to sell the work. The ruling was just issued yesterday. I’ll try to get my hands on the dismissal and look at the substance of the claims. To me, though, it seems like the claimant will have a very difficult time winning the case. We shouldn’t underestimate the underlying equities of a case either, Lloyd Webber was selling the work in order to donate the proceeds to charity. Though Mr. Schoeps story is indeed a tragic one, I’m not sure he will be using the work, or its proceeds, in as charitable a manner.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com