USA – CALIFORNIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Steve Coopersmith, Ashley Rastegarpour and Philippa Grumbley, The Coopersmith Law Firm, LLP
Act”). The HEAR Act created a uniform six-year filing period running from the claimant’s actual discovery of the Nazi-looted artwork’s identity and location, along with sufficient information to assert a claim. The goal was simple: prevent timing from blocking claims before heirs could pursue them. But the HEAR Act is limited. It does not alter sub - stantive property laws or override sovereign immu - nity, and it contains a sunset provision, causing it to expire on 1 January 2027. In March 2026, the US Congress unanimously passed the Holocaust Expro - priated Art Recovery (HEAR) Act of 2025, extending the 2016 HEAR Act beyond its scheduled December 2026 expiration, prohibiting defences such as laches and statutes of limitations, and allowing claims within six years of discovery. On 13 April 2026, the HEAR Act of 2025 was signed into law. And yet the sunset provision in the original HEAR Act shows how limited federal uniformity in this area really is and heightens the significance of state-level legislative responses. At the same time, federal jurisdiction narrowed. In Republic of Germany v Philipp , the Supreme Court held that Nazi seizures of property from German Jews constituted “domestic takings” beyond US jurisdic - tion under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Taken together, sovereign immunity doctrine and the impending HEAR sunset left federal avenues increas - ingly constrained. It is against that backdrop that Cali - fornia enacted AB 2867. Cassirer as catalyst to AB 2867 The long-running litigation in Cassirer v. Thyssen- Bornemisza (“Cassirer”) illustrates the ongoing struc - tural tensions in practice. The facts there involved, Camille Pissarro’s Rue Saint Honoré, Après midi, Effet de Pluie which was originally acquired in 1900, and later inherited by Lilly Cassirer, who lived in Berlin. After the Nazis took over in 1939, Lilly Cassirer, sold the painting under duress to secure an exit visa from Germany. Decades later, the painting resurfaced in Spain, and ultimately became part of the Thyssen- Bornemisza Collection. By the time the case reached its final stages, the coer - cive nature of the 1939 sale was not the dispositive issue. Instead, the dispute centred on which jurisdic -
tion’s law governed ownership. After more than 20 years of proceedings, the Ninth Circuit concluded that under California’s choice of law test, Spanish law con - trolled. Under Spanish law, which permits acquisition of title through prescription, the court determined that the Foundation had obtained valid title to the painting. Cassirer thus illustrates a significant weakness in Hol - ocaust restitution litigation: even where timing barriers are addressed and historical coercion is recognised, choice-of-law principles can determine the outcome. The application of foreign law, rather than statutes of limitation, proved dispositive for justice. AB 2867: A state-level intervention in Holocaust restitution In response to cases like Cassirer, California enacted AB 2867 in 2024. The statute provides that, California substantive law applies in actions seeking recovery of artwork or personal property taken as a result of political persecution. By requiring application of Cali - fornia substantive law, AB 2867 displaces reliance on foreign property doctrines. In Cassirer, the Ninth Circuit explained that under Spanish law, a posses - sor may acquire title through prescription, whereas under California law “a thief cannot pass good title.” AB 2867 therefore ensures that California ownership rules apply in covered cases. AB 2867 operates in a fundamentally different register from the HEAR Act. Whereas the HEAR Act addresses only procedural timing by extending statutes of limi - tation, it leaves untouched the substantive property law that ultimately governs ownership disputes. As a result, even timely claims brought under HEAR have frequently failed once courts applied foreign law rec - ognising title acquired through prescription or good- faith purchase. AB 2867 responds directly to that limitation by man - dating application of California ownership principles, thereby shifting the focus from procedural access to substantive adjudication on the merits. In this respect, AB 2867 reflects a legislative judgment that proce - dural access alone is insufficient where substantive choice-of-law rules continue to validate transfers rooted in persecution.
225 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook