WYWH: In Search of What Was Lost – A Panel with Holocaust Provenance Experts

November 4, 2026

Dirck Hals and Dirck van Delen “A merry company in a palatial interior, with musicians and tric-trac players”
oil on panel, 36 ½ x 61 ¾ in.

By Ambre Sananes

On October 19, the Central Synagogue in New York City hosted a panel called In Search of What Was Lost: A Panel with Holocaust Provenance Experts. The discussion centered on Nazi-looted art and cultural objects and the challenges surrounding their restitution. An accompanying eponymous exhibition In Search of What Was Lost (Oct. 23, 2026 – Jan. 22, 2027) traced the histories of six objects looted during the Second World War. In light of the Center’s ongoing work to identify and organize all instances of Nazi-era looted art claims and cases, this event was of particular interest. The following review is illustrated with photos taken by this author at the exhibition.

The panelists were Kate Aufses and Yaél Weitz, two attorneys who specialize in art law, particularly in provenance and restitution; Joel Greenberg, founder of the non-profit Art Ashes, which is dedicated to providing financial support and other resources to families seeking restitution of Nazi-looted art; and Emily Selter, a provenance researcher and curator of the exhibition. Rabbi Sarah Berman, director of Jewish programming culture at Central Synagogue, served as the moderator.

General background on Nazi-looted Art

Joel Greenberg estimated that $500 billion worth of property was stolen from European Jews during the Holocaust. He described it as both the worst crime against humanity and the worst financial crime in history. He also explained that because the Nazis seized all property owned by Jews, many survivors faced severe financial difficulties after the war. Today, there are fewer than 200,000 survivors worldwide, and between 50,000 and 75,000 of them are living in poverty.

Through his work, Greenberg encountered lawyers helping survivors obtain reparations and benefits pro bono. After learning that more than 100,000 paintings, worth tens of billions of dollars, remained missing, he and his wife established Art Ashes to support restitution claims. Following a successful recovery, families donate a portion of the proceeds to organizations helping survivors living in poverty.

An Exhibition Focusing on the Stealing of Objects of Sentimental Value

As Emily Selter explained, when the Nazis occupied countries across Europe, they searched for objects of value. Hitler had a particular interest in Old Master paintings and relied on art advisers and curators to acquire works on his behalf. Nazi looting extended to other institutions such as museums, churches, or private residences. However, painting were not the only targets; other belongings of lesser financial value, such as books, Torah scrolls, and furniture, were also seized or destroyed during this campaign. This was also part of a broader effort to erase Jewish life and culture.

As Emily Selter explained, the goal of this exhibition was to put the spotlight on recovered objects with less monetary value but whose significance to families and communities is considerable. These objects are often forgotten in comparison with valuable paintings that attract public attention. The exhibition therefore highlights furniture, Judaica, and Torah scrolls, objects whose stories are less often told. It also retraces the story of Jacob Lierens, a Dutch collector who was forced to sell his collection to a German administrator after the invasion of the Netherlands by the Nazis. Among the paintings was A Merry Company in a Palatial Interior, with musicians and Tric-Trac Players, by the Artist Dirk Francoisz Hals. This painting was sold for 9,000 guilders and resold three weeks later to Hans Posse, Hitler’s art agent, for 33,000 guilders.

The HEAR Act and Its Reform

Joel Greenberg, who advocated for the reform of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery (HEAR) Act, explained that many actors lobbied against the reform, notably museums and museum associations. This act, originally signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2016, established a six-year period for bringing restitution claims following actual discovery of the artwork’s identity and location and the claimant’s possessory interest in it.

However, Greenberg explained that even if the law was intended to ensure that claims brought by the owners of art seized during the Holocaust, or their heirs, would be decided on the merits, in practice this was not always the case. Courts continued to consider defenses not in the text, such as arguments that families had waited unreasonably long to pursue their claims, even when they filed within the six-year period, or invoked forum non conveniens (a court’s discretionary power to decline to exercise its jurisdiction where another court seems more appropriate to hear a case), monetary grounds, or other claims unrelated to the merits. Moreover, the Act included a sunset provision[1] that would cause it to expire at the end of 2026. Therefore, some museums, collectors, and dealers waited until that expiration to exhibit or sell disputed artworks, and heirs were left without legal resources to defend themselves.

Additionally, Greenberg stated that defenses presented transactions as fair-market sales despite the owners’ persecution, flight, or imprisonment. For him, some of these arguments bordered on Holocaust denial.

According to Greenberg, most opponents of the reform came from the German government, the French state-owned railway, and museum associations, which lobbied hard against it.

Despite this opposition, President Donald Trump signed the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025 on April 13, 2026, removing the original sunset provision and expressly barring laches and other time-based defenses for otherwise timely claims. It also barred certain discretionary grounds for dismissal unrelated to the merits.

Some Recent Examples of Restitution Cases

Through several restitution cases, the panelists also illustrated how historical context can shape a case’s outcome.

For example, Emily Selter discussed a case involving the sale of paintings in the Netherlands to the Nazis. The paintings had been pledged as collateral to a bank that had to liquidate because it was majority-owned by Jews at a time when Germany was invading the Netherlands.

When the bank acquired the artworks, art historians valued them at 4 million guilders, but because of the context, they had to be sold to a Dutch businessman for 1 million guilders. Eight months later, van Beuningen sold part of the collection to Hitler’s agent Hans Posse, including 19 paintings for 1.6 million guilders. This raised a moral question: how can consent be freely given when sales occur far below the artwork’s market value, and when the government can interfere with private contracts?

Yaél Weitz also cited a case involving the Dutch government that reached a different outcome for the owners, who were able to reclaim their artwork. This case involved the Dutch Jewish art dealer Jacques Goudstikker, who fled the Netherlands with his family but tragically died in an accident that occurred during their escape. Hermann Göring and others acquired hundreds of his artworks through forced sales. Despite his widow’s efforts, many recovered works remained in Dutch government custody for decades. After changes in Dutch restitution policy, in 2006, the Dutch government returned about 200 of these artworks to Marei von Saher, Goudstikker’s daughter-in-law and heir, in 2006.

This major restitution was made possible because Goudstikker’s wife, Desi, had preserved a black notebook that inventoried his collection and became indispensable evidence of Goudstikker’s ownership.

Kate Aufses discussed the ongoing claim brought by Hedwig Stern’s heirs concerning Vincent van Gogh’s Olive Picking, which they allege was sold without the family’s consent under Nazi persecution. The heirs claim that the Metropolitan Museum of Art acquired the painting knowing it had been looted and omitted Stern’s name from its provenance. The Met subsequently sold it in 1972 to the Greek collectors Basil and Elise Goulandris, and their foundation now displays it in Athens. Despite Stern’s efforts to recover her collection, the defendants argue that her earlier receipt of compensation amounted to a waiver of restitution rights and are challenging the constitutionality of the HEAR Act itself, defenses that are not authorized under the HEAR Act.

Conclusion

Despite these obstacles, the panelists ended on a positive note, saying there were still reasons for hope, including HEAR Act reform, the growing number of restitution claims brought by survivors and their families, and the increasing number of successful restitutions.

For example, Greenberg discussed the efforts to recover portraits painted by Holocaust survivor Dina Babbitt at Auschwitz. He told her story, notably when Josef Mengele forced her to paint portraits of Roma prisoners in exchange for keeping her and her mother alive. This lawsuit, filed in federal court in Los Angeles in September 2026, seeks the return of seven watercolor portraits held by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. Several law firms were willing to take the case pro bono, especially because the works’ significance to the family far exceeded their monetary value.

Yaél Weitz also described a recent restitution involving a painting from the renowned Goudstikker collection, which was found in Argentina in 2025. A Dutch journalist investigating the Nazi official Friedrich Kadgien discovered a missing painting in an online property listing for his daughter’s home. After the journalists contacted the family’s lawyers, a criminal investigation began. Weitz explained that the painting was surrendered to investigators and that an Argentine court later suspended the criminal proceedings and ordered its restitution. Since it was the first time an Argentine court had returned a Nazi-looted painting, she hoped the outcome would encourage other possessors and governments to act and lead to further recoveries in the region.

The Author’s Thoughts

The author found it particularly interesting that museums and museum associations were among the principal opponents of efforts to reform the HEAR Act. This highlighted a perspective she had not previously considered, especially in light of the Olive Picking case: museums have a great deal at stake in restitution claims, as successful claims may require them to relinquish some of the most valuable works in their collections.

The discussion of “voluntary” sales also prompted the author to question what constitutes genuine consent in the context of artworks sold by Jewish owners during the Holocaust. Given the severe restrictions imposed on Jewish property ownership and the widespread persecution and economic pressure they faced, could such sales truly be considered voluntary? Even where a sale appeared lawful on paper, could the surrounding circumstances amount to duress? The discussion also raised a broader legal question: when government policies or actions create the conditions under which a sale takes place, to what extent should that transaction be considered coerced?

About the author

Ambre Sananes (Center for Art Law Fall 2026 Legal Intern) is an LLM graduate in Competition, Innovation and Information Law from NYU. She holds master’s degrees in intellectual property and digital law from the University of Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne and the University of Paris-Saclay.

Recommended resources

De Waal, Edmund, The Hare with Amber Eyes: A Hidden Inheritance, Picador, 2021.

Ezquiaga, Mercedes, Argentina Court Orders Return of Nazi-Looted Old Master Portrait to Jewish Dealer’s Heir, The Art Newspaper, September 7, 2026.

Lauter, Devorah, Bolstered by New Laws, Lawsuits in Los Angeles Renew Bids for Restitution of Nazi-Looted Art, ARTnews, September 16, 2026.

Rice, Nina (interview), edited and supplemented by Kameron-Jai Keel, Interview with Jennifer A. Kreder about the HEAR Act, Center for Art Law, March 11, 2023.

Sinmaz, Emine, Met Museum sued by Family over allegedly Nazi-looted Van Gogh Painting, The Guardian, October 29, 2025

Laws

Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025, Pub. L. No. 119-82, 140 Stat. 752 (April 13, 2026).

[1] The Cambridge Dictionary defines a sunset clause as a part of a law or contract that states when it will end and under what conditions.