I was honored to take part in a symposium last February at the University of Kansas School of Law entitled “A Museum’s Purpose,” which addressed a variety of cultural property related topics. KU was a wonderful host, and Lawrence is a charming town. I spent a great weekend in Kansas City (which was perfect aside from the then-recent Chiefs Super Bowl win-Go Pats!), saw a Jayhawks basketball game, and even visited the grave of Dr. James Naismith, who invented the great sport of basketball in Springfield, Massachusetts.
I am pleased to announce that the article I wrote for the symposium has been published in the Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy. Entitled “Refuge in Exile—the Peculiar Category of Fluchtgut and Art Transferred by Victims in Flight from Nazi Persecution,” my paper seeks to address the legal status of works that changed hands in the Nazi era that are not strictly covered by the more familiar frameworks of Nazi expropriation and forced sales that have been the focus of most of the discussion since the Washington Conference in 1998, and propose a judicial and analytical framework to deal with them. In my own practice this year, the Allentown Cranach story is an illustrative example.
Read More
Topics:
University of Kansas,
South Texas College of Law,
Washington Conference Principles,
UCLA School of Law,
Nazi persecution,
flight goods,
Derek Fincham,
Fluchtgut,
Dr. James Naismith,
Lauren Van Schilfgaarde,
MacKenzie Mallon,
Michael Hoeflich,
Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy,
The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art,
Megan Gannon
I was proud to advise the Allentown Art Museum, which announced today that it has reached an agreement with the heirs of Henry and Hertha Bromberg concerning Portrait of George, Duke of Saxony by Lucas Cranach the Elder and his workshop. Pursuant to the agreement, the painting will be auctioned at Christie’s in New York next year following educational programming focusing on the painting’s history. The Museum’s press release can be read here. The story was also addressed in an excellent article in The New York Times by Graham Bowley.
(Portrait of George the Bearded, Duke of Saxony, by Lucas Cranach the Elder and workshop)
Read More
Topics:
Graham Bowley,
Paris,
Washington Conference Principles,
Christie's,
Hamburg,
Lucas Cranach the Elder,
The New York Times,
Nazi-confiscated art,
Henry Bromberg,
Hertha Bromberg,
Martin Bromberg,
Max Weintraub,
Reichsfluchtsteuer,
Allen Loebl,
F. Kleinberger Gallery,
property inventory,
Allentown Art Museum,
Portrait of George the Bearded Duke of Saxony,
Porträt des Georg dem Bärtigen Herzog von Sachsen,
Vermögensverzeichnis,
Wildenstein
News Accompanied by Deafening Silence About Ongoing Restitution Policy Failures
The German government announced recently that it had returned an additional work of art found in the Salzburg home of Cornelius Gurlitt in connection with the 2013 revelation of Gurlitt’s trove of art originally in the possession of his late father Hildebrand. La Seine, vue du Pont-Neuf, au fond le Louvre by Camille Pissarro (1902) has been returned to the heirs of Max Heilbronn, from whom it was taken in 1942 in France. The accompanying announcement was of a piece with the ongoing fiasco of the Gurlitt affair: a press release touting the personal involvement of Germany’s Minister of Culture Monika Grütters, a self-serving but vague statement about commitments to restitution, and absolutely no explanation or update about what is happening to the hundreds of additional paintings and objects under investigation. The press release was also sure to mention an upcoming exhibition of Gurlitt collection works later this year. In sum, the announcement confirms precisely the opposite of its intended effect.
Read More
Topics:
Cornelius Gurlitt,
Germany,
Nazi-looted art,
Washington Conference Principles,
Hildebrand Gurlit,
Gurlitt,
NS Raubkunst,
Kunstmuseum Bern,
Monika Grütters,
Taskforce Schwabinger Kunstfund,
Welfenschatz,
Minister of Culture,
Gurlitt Taskforce
I’ve been talking quite a bit to friends, colleagues and clients about the impact of last week’s decision in the Cassirer v. Thyssen Bornemisza case. The New York Times had a follow up article yesterday which was an interesting treatment of the various themes at work in the case and in restitution cases in the United States generally these days. In fact, I think the effect is mostly limited, except to the extent that the decision assumes and treats as uncontroversial important principles about sales under duress and is a case that resolved title under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). As we predicted, the Times article makes clear that the museum has absolutely no intention of giving the painting back, but did float the idea of some recognition of the historical circumstances, which is progress (certainly compared to other instances in which obvious circumstances of duress are denied).
Read More
Topics:
Lilly Cassirer Neubauer,
Terezin Declaration,
Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection,
Rue St. Honoré après-midi êffet de pluie,
Jacques Goudstikker,
California Code of Civil Procedure § 354.3,
Nazi-looted art,
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,
Washington Conference Principles,
Bakalar v. Vavra,
Fritz Grünbaum,
FSIA,
adverse possession,
expropriation exception”,
Restitution,
Marei Von Saher,
sovereign immunity,
Egon Schiele,
Jakob Schweidwimmer,
World War II,
Foreign Sovereign Immunities,
Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 222,
Altmann v. Republic of Austria,
Camille Pissarro,
foreign affairs doctrine,
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
Museums,
Baron Hans-Heinrich Thyssen- Bornemisza,
28 U.S.C. § 1605
One of the longest running art restitution litigations in the United States has been dismissed for a second time, with another appeal likely to follow. The heirs of Lilly Cassirer Neubauer have been pursuing the return of Camille Pissarro’s Rue St. Honoré, après-midi, êffet de pluie from the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection in Madrid for more than ten years, but on June 4, 2015 the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles ruled that the Spanish museum has acquired full title to the painting by adverse possession. The key aspect of the decision is the court’s resolution of the choice of law question, namely, should California law or Spanish law apply to the question of who owns the painting? After a lengthy analysis the court determined that Spanish law applies, and that the museum has possessed the painting long enough to have become the owner regardless of the fact that it was sold under duress. So now a case that has already been to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals twice will almost certainly head back a third time. The court concluded its decision by appealing to the parties to “pause, reflect, and consider whether it would be appropriate to work towards a mutually-agreeable resolution of this action, in light of Spain’s acceptance of the Washington Conference Principles and the Terezin Declaration, and, specifically, its commitment to achieve “just and fair solutions” for victims of Nazi persecution.” But it is hard to see why that would happen. Notwithstanding the dictates of the Washington Principles, the Collection has been quite content to resist the claim. Now that it has won, it is hard to imagine it suddenly taking a different view.
Read More
Topics:
Lilly Cassirer Neubauer,
Terezin Declaration,
Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection,
Rue St. Honoré après-midi êffet de pluie,
Jacques Goudstikker,
California Code of Civil Procedure § 354.3,
Nazi-looted art,
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,
Washington Conference Principles,
FSIA,
adverse possession,
expropriation exception”,
Restitution,
Marei Von Saher,
sovereign immunity,
Jakob Schweidwimmer,
World War II,
Foreign Sovereign Immunities,
Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 222,
Altmann v. Republic of Austria,
Camille Pissarro,
foreign affairs doctrine,
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
Museums,
Baron Hans-Heinrich Thyssen- Bornemisza,
28 U.S.C. § 1605,
Welfenschatz
