A painting by French Impressionist Camille Pissarro, sold by Sotheby’s for £1.2 million in 2024, has become the centre of a legal battle involving the heirs of a Jewish banker whose art collection was seized by the Nazis during World War II. Seven descendants of Salomon Flavian have approached a Paris court seeking to overturn the agreement that allowed the painting to be sold, arguing that most of the family was not consulted before the settlement was reached. The auction house disputes the claim that the artwork was looted and has also challenged the French court’s jurisdiction.According to The Art Newspaper, which reported on the proceedings in September 2026, the dispute concerns ‘Darse de pêche et bassin Duquesne, Dieppe, après-midi ensoleillée’, a 1902 painting depicting the French port town of Dieppe. Sotheby’s sold the work in London on June 25, 2024, for £1.2 million, below its estimated price range of £1.5 million to £2.5 million. The Paris court is expected to deliver its ruling on November 5, 2026.
Painting’s disputed journey through history
Pissarro’s painting was owned by Flavian, a Jewish banker and art collector who lived in Paris during the 1930s. His extensive art collection was seized by the Nazis in 1941, and his descendants believe the Dieppe painting was among the works taken. The painting’s history has attracted scrutiny because it appears in France’s postwar Répertoire des biens spoliés, a government register of property reported as looted during the German occupation. The register was published between 1947 and 1949 to help identify and recover property that had not yet been returned to its owners.However, the presence of an artwork in the register does not, by itself, conclusively establish every detail of how it changed hands. The painting’s wartime provenance, or documented history of ownership, is now at the heart of the legal dispute. Sotheby’s catalogue acknowledged Flavian’s ownership and the painting’s inclusion in the register. It also stated that the work was being offered for sale pursuant to a settlement between its current owner and Flavian’s heirs.The painting subsequently appeared in exhibitions at major art institutions, including Tate in London, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Philadelphia Museum of Art, according to reports on the case.
Seven heirs challenge settlement
The legal challenge is not limited to whether the painting was stolen. It also concerns how the settlement was negotiated and whether all the heirs were properly represented. According to The Art Newspaper, seven family members told the Paris court during a September 18 hearing that only two relatives, Gilles and Nicolas Flavian, had signed the agreement. They argue that the other descendants were not consulted before the deal was finalised.Under the arrangement, the two signatories waived their rights to the painting in connection with the sale. Four months after the auction, other family members reportedly received a letter from Mondex Corporation, a Toronto-based firm specialising in recovering assets lost during the Holocaust. The letter said an 8% share of the net sale price had been accepted on their behalf in exchange for their cooperation. An accompanying account statement referred to a 16% commission associated with the two heirs who signed the agreement.The seven plaintiffs are seeking to have the settlement annulled, arguing that they were excluded from decisions affecting their family’s claim to the artwork. Sotheby’s maintains that the settlement was disclosed in its catalogue. In a statement reported by The Jewish Chronicle, the auction house said: “Those discussions resulted in a settlement agreement between the consignor and Mondex, which was fully disclosed in our catalogue and pursuant to which the work was sold. ”
Was the painting actually looted?
The painting’s wartime history remains contested. Sotheby’s and Mondex have relied on provenance research commissioned by the sellers, which concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the work had been seized by the Nazis.The research, conducted by scholar Mary Kate Cleary, found no reference to the painting in the confiscation lists maintained by the Nazi task force known as the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg, which was responsible for looting artworks during the war.The research suggested that the painting may instead have been sold by Paris art dealer Paul Rosenberg to British collector Edward Le Bas around 1938, before the Nazi occupation of France. References to Le Bas in historical records were cited in support of this interpretation.The heirs’ lawyer, Corinne Hershkovitch, challenged that conclusion. She argued that the absence of the painting from the Nazi inventories did not necessarily prove that it had not been looted. She also questioned whether the historical records used in the research had been interpreted correctly and argued that additional family archives could help clarify the painting’s ownership.Mondex’s lawyer, Melina Wolman, maintained that the firm believed the painting had been wrongly registered as looted. Mondex founder James Palmer said the firm had adopted its position after examining the available evidence. The competing accounts mean that the question of whether the painting was forcibly taken from Flavian’s collection remains unresolved.
Sotheby’s questions French court’s authority
The auction house has also argued that the Paris court lacks jurisdiction because the transaction took place in London between parties it says had no direct relationship with France. The heirs’ case, however, is rooted in the painting’s alleged seizure in Paris during the Nazi occupation and the subsequent dispute over the rights of Flavian’s descendants.The court’s decision could therefore determine not only whether the settlement can be challenged, but also how the family’s claims will proceed. The ruling is not necessarily a final determination of the painting’s wartime history or ownership. The case highlights the difficulties that can arise decades after the Holocaust, when artworks have passed through multiple owners, historical records are incomplete and descendants seek to recover property taken from their families.For the Flavian heirs, the dispute involves both the contested history of a painting and the question of whether they were given a meaningful role in the agreement that enabled its sale. For Sotheby’s and Mondex, the central issues include the evidence supporting the looting allegation, the validity of the settlement and the court’s authority to hear the case.