Print Email this page In the News

Pryor Cashman represents plaintiff David Bakalar, the present owner of Egon Schiele artwork, in Bakalar v. Vavra, a case currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and involving the ownership and provenance of the artwork, which is alleged to have been aryanized during World War II.

The litigation, handled by partners James Janowitz and William Charron with associate Mona Simonian, 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. 

Recently, the Court rendered an important decision involving choice of law. In advance of the trial which is scheduled to commence on July 14, 2008, the Court had asked the parties to make motions in limine (prior to trial) to determine which foreign jurisdiction’s law should apply to the case. Pryor Cashman argued that under New York’s choice of law rules, Swiss law (because the allegedly stolen art was first transferred to a third party in Switzerland) and not Austrian law (from where the art is alleged to have been stolen) should apply.

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 numerous 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 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.