filter_list Showing 3 results for "International Art Center" close Clear
dashboard All 3 gavel restitution 3
date_range Range Today This Week This Month All
Subscribe

The Nahmad family ordered to return a Nazi-looted Modigliani, valued at 21.5 million euros, to a French farmer

La famille Nahmad sommée de restituer à un agriculteur français un Modigliani spolié par les nazis, estimé à 21,5 millions d’euros

The New York State Supreme Court has ordered the restitution of Amedeo Modigliani’s 1918 painting, 'Seated Man (with a Cane)', to Philippe Maestracci, the grandson of Jewish art dealer Oscar Stettiner. The artwork, valued at approximately €21.5 million, was looted from Stettiner’s Paris gallery by the Nazis in 1944. Despite a 1946 court ruling in Stettiner's favor, the painting remained hidden for decades before being acquired in 1996 by the billionaire Nahmad family through an offshore entity.

nahmad lawsuit nazi looted modigliani 372020

The estate of Jewish art dealer Oscar Stettiner has filed a new lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court against the Nahmad family, seeking the restitution of Amedeo Modigliani’s 1918 painting "Seated Man With a Cane." The suit alleges that the $25 million portrait was looted by the Nazis in Paris and is currently held by the International Art Center, which the plaintiffs claim is a shell company controlled by the Nahmads. This legal action follows a 2012 dismissal of a similar claim by Stettiner’s grandson, Philippe Maestracci, due to a lack of standing.

david nahmad denies modigliani nazi loot 517082

Art collector David Nahmad has publicly denied allegations that Amedeo Modigliani’s "Seated Man with a Cane" (1918) is Nazi-looted property. Following revelations from the Panama Papers that Nahmad is the true owner of the painting via the International Art Center, he defended his provenance, claiming the work sought by the heirs of Jewish art dealer Oscar Stettiner is a different painting entirely. Nahmad asserted that if the work is definitively proven to be looted, he will return it, but he currently maintains that the historical documentation regarding a 1944 sale at Drouot refers to a self-portrait, not the work in his possession.