Print Email this page In the News

On September 2, 2008, Judge William H. Pauley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, after a seven day trial, ruled in favor of Pryor Cashman client David Bakalar, an owner of Egon Schiele artwork, in the case of Bakalar v. Vavra. 

The litigation, which involved the ownership and provenance of Egon Schiele artwork which was alleged to have been aryanized during World War II, was conducted by Pryor Cashman partners James Janowitz and William Charron with associate Mona Simonian.  

In its decision in favor of Bakalar, the Court found that Bakalar was a good faith purchaser of the Egon Schiele artwork and thus held valid title to it. The Court found no concrete evidence that the Nazis looted or otherwise aryanized this particular artwork. Rather, all of the evidence established that the Schiele work was sold to a Swiss art gallery by the presumed owner's sister-in-law after she was able to escape Nazi-occupied Austria. The Court held that the Swiss art gallery was a good faith purchaser of the Schiele work and had full authority to transfer its title to the work to the New York gallery from which Bakalar purchased that work and acquired full title to it.

To read the 17-page decision, please click here.

The case has received widespread publicity ever since it was commenced. Pryor Cashman’s victory was front-page news in The New York Law Journal. To read that article, please click here. To read The Boston Globe’s coverage of the decision, please click here.    

The litigation was a major story in the April 2008 issue of ARTnews. To read the story entitled “Unraveling the Mystery of ‘Dead City’” and to learn more about the case, please click here. 

Prior to trial, the Court rendered an important decision involving choice of law. On May 30, 2008, the Court, after reviewing the parties’ analysis of New York’s complicated choice of law rules in this setting as well as the relevant substantive laws of Switzerland and Austria, rejected defendants’ contention that Swiss law “facilitates trafficking in stolen property” and granted Pryor Cashman’s motion to apply Swiss law. The New York Law Journal reprinted the decision as one of its “Decisions of Interest” in its June 5, 2008 edition. To read the decision, please click here.

The case has been the subject of other press reports. To read the The New York Observer's February 19, 2007 story entitled “Lawsuit over Schiele Drawing Has Legs,” please click here.

The case was also covered in the August 3 and August 25, 2006 issues of the New York Law Journal. The August 3 article, entitled “Class Action Certification Over Seized Artwork Denied; FRCP 23(a)'s Requirements Not Satisfied,” was a “Decision of Interest” and reprinted in full the favorable ruling that Pryor Cashman obtained in successfully opposing a rare motion for counterclaim defendant class certification. To read that article, please click here.

The August 25, 2006 article, entitled “Heirs' Bid to Prove Rights to Schiele Work Advances,” was a front-page story that reported on the Court’s subsequent decision to permit the case to proceed instead of dismissing it on the ground of laches. To read that article, please click here.