News Sompo Holdings defends ownership of Van Gogh's Sunflowers

Sompo Holdings has defended its ownership of Van Gogh's "Sunflowers", obtained at auction in 1987 after its former owner, the Mendelsohn-Bartholdy family, filed a US lawsuit demanding its return.

They say Sompo's predecessor, Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance, acquired the painting "in reckless disregard of its provenance, including Mendelssohn-Bartholdy's forced sale of the painting in Nazi Germany in 1934". "Sompo Holdings wrongfully has employed the Painting to reap billions of dollars of unjust enrichment through a sophisticated branding strategy," the lawsuit said. "Defendants have commercially exploited as a corporate emblem what they long have all but known was a Nazi-tainted artwork." But Sompo Holdings defended its ownership of the painting in a statement to AFP on Tuesday, saying it "categorically rejects the complaint's allegations of wrongdoing". The company "intends to defend its ownership rights in 'Sunflowers vigorously'", Sompo added.

Click to expand...

I support the restitution of artwork stolen by the Nazis; the only problem here is that the "Sunflowers" was sold (under Nazi threat) by Paul von Mendelsohn-Bartholdy and not confiscated. Sompo acquired it at an auction at Christie's.

In a 98-page document for Schoeps et al v. Sompo Holdings, Inc. et al filed December 13th, the heirs of Berlin banker Paul Mendelssohn-Bartholdy ask for $750 million in punitive damages from the Japanese-based company Sompo regarding the ownership of Sunflowers from 1889 (deemed to be three times its current value). Sompo's business dealings in the United States have prompted the heirs to file the case in Illinois.

Click to expand...

Seven hundred fifty million USD in punitive damages?

Wow, this seems like an extremely tough case to prove in court. Even if they can prove it was sold under duress (Mendelssohn-Bartholdy himself died in 1935), Sompo Holdings certainly had nothing to do with the sale. I can't imagine what injuries were caused by Sompo Holdings that might justify even a tenth of that amount. The painting itself was very strongly suggested to have been a forgery, or, at least a kind of mannerism of Van Gogh done by one of his contemporaries. I suspect the high punitive damages request is for the purpose of generating views, which, it has succeeded in doing. This family has sued successfully for other works, but they are, I suppose, "lesser" works that the owners could relinquish and get some commensurate compensation in the form of goodwill or good publicity.

And some of the comments under that Yahoo story.... yikes on bikes.

"I have to say after looking over closely another Van Gogh I don't get the fascination because honestly it's not good art. Of course so many of these purchases are for "investment purposes" but what a waste of money to have it tied up for so many years and sitting in some storage closet for few to see."

To say nothing of the anti-semetic remarks. Good god what a lot of trashy humans there are in this world.