The descendants of Jewish banker and art collector Paul von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy are continuing their legal fight to reclaim Vincent van Gogh's famous painting "Sunflowers" (1888-89), now valued at $250 million, from Japanese insurance company Sompo Holdings. The heirs claim their ancestor was forced to sell the masterpiece under pressure from Nazi authorities in 1934.

Three plaintiffs—Julius H. Schoeps, Britt-Marie Enhoerning, and Florence von Kesselstatt—are representing more than 30 beneficiaries in the lawsuit filed against Sompo Holdings in 2022. After a lower court dismissed their case in June 2024, the heirs appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in May and presented their arguments before a three-judge panel on September 17, according to Courthouse News.

Sompo Holdings, formerly known as Yasuda, purchased the Van Gogh painting in 1987 for a then-record $25 million at a Christie's auction in London. The Mendelssohn-Bartholdy heirs argue that the Yasuda corporate entity failed to acknowledge provenance evidence identifying Paul von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy as a previous owner when they acquired the artwork. The painting is currently displayed at the Sompo Museum of Art in Tokyo.

This particular "Sunflowers" is one of only three such paintings created by Van Gogh between 1888 and 1889. The other two masterpieces are housed at London's National Gallery and the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, making this work exceptionally rare and valuable in the art world.

The heirs filed their lawsuit under the 2016 Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery (HEAR) Act, seeking to recover not only the painting but also monetary compensation for the value Sompo derived from exhibiting the work. Specifically, they want recompense for profits from the exhibition "Van Gogh and Gauguin: The Studio of the South" held at the Art Institute of Chicago from 2001 to 2002, which featured the disputed painting.

During the September 17 hearing, Thomas Hamilton, representing the heirs, described the case to the panel of judges as a "devil's bargain," explaining it as a situation "whereby a party in exchange for receiving some illicit advantage or power, that promises great wealth and fame, forfeits its authentic identity and mortgages its future."

In their appellate brief, the heirs emphasized the international scope and authority of the HEAR Act, arguing that its provisions "enjoin federal courts to exercise their maximal judicial authority and discretion both to entertain these claims as well as resolve them expeditiously, fairly and on their substantive merits." They contend that the law gives U.S. courts broad power to handle Nazi-looted art cases.

The heirs' legal team also highlighted that the HEAR Act represents a diplomatic commitment to the 2009 Terezin Declaration, a legally non-binding international agreement in which signatory governments pledged to expedite the return of Nazi-looted artwork to rightful owners or their descendants. Despite the lower court's dismissal based on insufficient connections to Illinois, the heirs argued that Sompo Holdings' brick-and-mortar office in Chicago was sufficient to establish the necessary legal connection to the state.

Daniel Graham, representing Sompo Holdings, countered these arguments by asserting that because Mendelssohn-Bartholdy sold the painting at a public auction, it doesn't meet the legal definition of Nazi-confiscated art. Graham argued that the sale was conducted through normal market channels rather than through direct confiscation by Nazi authorities.

Graham further challenged the heirs' interpretation of the HEAR Act, stating that the law has a much more limited scope than the plaintiffs claim. "It's specifically focused on eliminating statute of limitations for a specific period of time for causes of action, either federal or state causes of action. That's it," Graham explained to the court, according to Courthouse News. "It didn't open up the Pandora. It didn't open up the box for creation of common law claims and causes of action. In fact, Congress explicitly said, it cannot."

In response, Hamilton argued that the Terezin Declaration constitutes an executive agreement that has received the full support of Congress, allowing it to operate with the complete foreign policy authority of the United States. He dismissed concerns about the non-binding nature of the Terezin Declaration, calling this aspect "a red herring" that doesn't diminish its legal significance or the U.S. government's commitment to addressing Nazi-looted art claims.

The three-judge panel has not yet ruled on the appeal, nor have they indicated when they might issue their decision. The case represents one of many ongoing legal battles over artwork stolen or sold under duress during the Nazi era, as families continue to seek the return of cultural treasures lost during World War II. The outcome could have significant implications for future restitution claims involving Nazi-looted art held by institutions and companies worldwide.