Theft is not a transaction. Coerced sales post 1933, this I believe in 1939, aren't transaction. This case apparently centered on the publicity the painting garnered years ago, not the issue of it's acquisiton by the Nazis, which is not in doubt, nor it's status from 1939 to 1963 wich is unknown. Don't know about California, but in the East and Midwest litigation over century old title and treaties aren't uncommon at all. Laws are laws, but Liz should be ashamed.
IN my opinion the Orkins are attacking the wrong party. Taylor arguably bought the painting in good faith that she was buying a painting with a clear title.
I believe the Orkins grief should be with Sotheby’s. They did not practice due diligence in selling the painting which from what I have read was common practice with Nazi stolen art for decades.
The large prestigious art/auction houses for years bought and sold art stolen buy the Nazis ignoring the obvious facts, willingly believing bogus bills of sale and/or providence documents.
This is hitting you hard. It is a painting that she purchased legally. Now let’s get back to real life now. lol.
Liz could have taken her money and invested in other fine art had she known this was someone else’s and she herself would not have potentially lost millions of dollars herself.
By these people not making timely claims, they lost their right to compensation.
They seemed to have no problem trying to cost Liz Taylor millions of dollars.
She originally bought the art in good faith.
If those with a grievances were not aggressive in getting this taken care of decades ago, it is not Liz’s fault.
I think this is a totally correct decision.