This links to the home page
Art Law Blog
FILTERS
  • All Categories0
    • All Categories
    • 5 Pointz
    • Art Exhibitions
    • Art Galleries
    • Art Market
    • Auction
    • Authentication
    • Contracts
    • Copyright
    • Fair Use
    • Fine Art
    • Firm Update
    • Forfeiture
    • Forgeries
    • Foundations
    • Gagosian
    • Graffiti
    • Grossman LLP
    • James Castle
    • Legal Developments
    • Money Laundering
    • Museums
    • Native American Art
    • Nazi-looted Art
    • Ponzi Schemes
    • Provenance
    • Public Art
    • Richard Prince
    • Stolen Artwork
    • Street Art
    • Trademark
    • Uncategorized
    • VARA
  • All Attorneys0
    • All Attorneys
    • Judd B. Grossman
    • Kate Lucas
    • Webster D. McBride
    • Emily Andersen
    • Jacquie Jakimowicz
  • All Practices0
    • All Practices
    • Art Law
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Securities Litigation
  • All Months0
    • All Months
    • March 2025
    • February 2025
    • January 2025
    • December 2024
    • October 2024
    • August 2024
    • July 2024
    • May 2024
    • April 2024
    • March 2024
    • February 2024
    • December 2023
    • November 2023
    • October 2023
    • September 2023
    • August 2023
    • July 2023
    • June 2023
    • May 2023
    • April 2023
    • March 2023
    • February 2023
    • January 2023
    • December 2022
    • November 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • July 2022
    • June 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • January 2022
    • December 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • June 2021
    • May 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
    • December 2018
    • November 2018
    • October 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
    • August 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • May 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • January 2017
    • December 2016
    • November 2016
    • October 2016
    • September 2016
    • August 2016
    • July 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • April 2016
    • March 2016
    • February 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • November 2015
    • October 2015
    • September 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
  • The Met Faces Litigation Regarding Nazi-Era Art
    10/05/2016
    Litigation involving art displaced during World War II—and with it the continued focus on the need for adequate pre-acquisition due diligence—is in the news again with the recent filing of complaint against the Metropolitan Museum of Art regarding Pablo Picasso’s The Actor.  See Estate of Leffman v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 16-cv-7665 (S.D.N.Y.).

    The complaint alleges that Paul Leffman, the former owner of the painting, was forced to sell his home and businesses in Germany before fleeing to Italy with his wife in 1937.  In 1938, Mr. Leffman allegedly sold the painting “under duress” to Paris art dealers to flee to Switzerland when conditions in Italy worsened.  The work was eventually donated to the Met in 1952, where it has been on display ever since.  The complaint contends that due Mr. Leffman’s state of duress at the time of the sale, law and public policy mandate that good title never passed from Leffman to the Paris art dealers.  Thus, the subsequent owners—including the Met—never acquired good title to the work, which should remain property of the Leffman estate.

    The complaint further alleges that the Met accepted the donation with “no questions asked,” even though it “should reasonably have known” about Leffman’s ownership and the circumstances under which he was forced to dispose of the painting.  The Met, it is alleged, previously published erroneous provenance from 1967-2010, stating that the work was part of a “German private collection” from 1912-1938, instead of being owned by Mr. Leffman.  According to the complaint, this incorrect provenance “underscores” the lack of diligence that the Met undertook in accepting the painting.  The estate originally demanded the return of the painting in 2010, but the Met has refused.  The parties entered into several tolling agreements, which expired last week, coinciding with the Estate’s filing of the complaint.

    The Met has denied there are grounds for Zuckerman’s claims stating that “[w]hile the Met understands and sympathizes deeply with the losses that Paul and Alice Leffman endured during the Nazi era, it firmly believes that this painting was not among them—and that the Met has indisputable title to The Actor—which it will vigorously defend.”   Whether the Met is able to overcome the estate’s claims, this case will be serve as yet another reminder concerning the necessity of appropriate due diligence—no matter who the parties—in connection with the acquisition of artwork.
This links to the home page
Art Law Blog
  • The Met Faces Litigation Regarding Nazi-Era Art
    10/05/2016
    Litigation involving art displaced during World War II—and with it the continued focus on the need for adequate pre-acquisition due diligence—is in the news again with the recent filing of complaint against the Metropolitan Museum of Art regarding Pablo Picasso’s The Actor.  See Estate of Leffman v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 16-cv-7665 (S.D.N.Y.).

    The complaint alleges that Paul Leffman, the former owner of the painting, was forced to sell his home and businesses in Germany before fleeing to Italy with his wife in 1937.  In 1938, Mr. Leffman allegedly sold the painting “under duress” to Paris art dealers to flee to Switzerland when conditions in Italy worsened.  The work was eventually donated to the Met in 1952, where it has been on display ever since.  The complaint contends that due Mr. Leffman’s state of duress at the time of the sale, law and public policy mandate that good title never passed from Leffman to the Paris art dealers.  Thus, the subsequent owners—including the Met—never acquired good title to the work, which should remain property of the Leffman estate.

    The complaint further alleges that the Met accepted the donation with “no questions asked,” even though it “should reasonably have known” about Leffman’s ownership and the circumstances under which he was forced to dispose of the painting.  The Met, it is alleged, previously published erroneous provenance from 1967-2010, stating that the work was part of a “German private collection” from 1912-1938, instead of being owned by Mr. Leffman.  According to the complaint, this incorrect provenance “underscores” the lack of diligence that the Met undertook in accepting the painting.  The estate originally demanded the return of the painting in 2010, but the Met has refused.  The parties entered into several tolling agreements, which expired last week, coinciding with the Estate’s filing of the complaint.

    The Met has denied there are grounds for Zuckerman’s claims stating that “[w]hile the Met understands and sympathizes deeply with the losses that Paul and Alice Leffman endured during the Nazi era, it firmly believes that this painting was not among them—and that the Met has indisputable title to The Actor—which it will vigorously defend.”   Whether the Met is able to overcome the estate’s claims, this case will be serve as yet another reminder concerning the necessity of appropriate due diligence—no matter who the parties—in connection with the acquisition of artwork.