SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY GEORGE W. GOWEN as LIMITED ANCILLARY: AMENDED AND ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SUPPLEMENTAL OSCAR STETTINER SUMMONS Plaintiff, v Index#: 650646/14 HELLY NAHMAD GALLERY. INC., HELLY Date purchased: February 27,2044 NAHMAD (NEW YORK), individually, DAVID NAHMAD and INTERNATIONAL ART CENTER, S.A. Defendants TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon the plaintiff's attomeys an answer to the amended and supplemental complaint in this action within twenty (20) days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, or within thimy (30) days after service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York, You are hereby notified that in case of your failure to appear or answer, « judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the amended and supplemental complaint, ‘The plaintiff designates New York County as the place of rial. The basis of venue is defendants’ place of business. tueseneso 000%,Dated: New York, New York November 23, 2015 ‘White Plains, New York 10606 Tel. No, (914) 946-3700 (eovstanspocx)SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. NEW YORK COUNTY x GEORGE W. GOWEN as LIMITED ANCILLARY: ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF OSCAR STETTINER, VERIFIED AMENDED AND. SUPPLEMENTAL Plaintiff, COMPLAINT Index: 650646/14 v. Hon, Eileen Bransten, J HELLY NAHMAD GALLERY, INC., HELLY: NAHMAD (NEW YORK), individually, DAVID NAHMAD and INTERNATIONAL ART CENTER, S.A., Defendants Plaintiff George W. Gowen, as limited ancillary administrator of the Estate of Oscar Stettiner, by his attomeys McCarthy Fingar, LLP as and for his Verified Amended and Supplemental Complaint alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1, This is an action for declaration of title, conversion and replevin of a painting by ‘Amedeo Modigliani, (a renowned Halian Jewish artist who worked predominantly in Franee), titled “Seated Man with a Cane, 1918” (“The Painting”). 2, The Painting is alleged by defendants to be currently located in the possession and under the control of defendant Intemational Art Center, 8.A. (IAC), a Panamanian shell company that along with Helly Nabmad Gallery, Inc. (“HNGI"); are alter egos of David Nahiad and other Nahmad Fatnily members as part of the defacto Nahmad Family Ast Enterprise (ONFAE”) (together the “Nahimad Defendants"). 3, This action is brought by plaintiff Gowen as limited ancillary administrator to recover The Paiming which belonged to Oscar Stettiner, who had an individual art collection andwho also operated an art gallery in Paris. The Painting was confiscated from Steitiner's persons collection by the Nazis in Paris, France during World War II. JURISDICTION AND PARTIES 4, Plaintiff George W. Gowen is a New York City resident and the duly appointed and presently serving Limited Ancillary Administrator of the Estate of Oscar Stettiner by virtue ofthe Letters of Administration granted by New York County Surrogate Nora §, Anderson dated Jone 27, 2013, the date plaintiff became entitled to demand The Painting’s return to the Estate (Exhibit 1), ond Surrogate Anderson’s Decision dismissing Respondent's Revocation Petition (Exhibit 2). 5, Three years since the appointment of Administrator Gowen, the earliest possible time he had the right to demand the return of The Painting, has not yet elapsed. 6 The earliest demand by Administrator Gowen to LAC was his motion to be added as a plaintiff to this Supreme Court action on October 21, 2014. 7. Upon information and belief, all of the defendants and Nahmad family members act in concert as one enterprise constituting the NFAE, dominated by defendant David Nahmad. Despite appearing on paper as separate business corporations, HNGI, Helly Nahmad Gallery Ld. in London (HINGL” London), and defendant IAC, operate as one single enterprise (“NFAE”). Such entities are all dominated and controlled by defendant David Nahmad, defendant Helly Nahmad, (NY) and Helly Nahmad, (London), who comingle the operations of the entities in New York, London, England, and Geneva, Switzerland, and purportedly in Panama. & Defendant, HNGI, is a New York Corporation doing business in New York County and upon information and belief an alter ego of David Nabmad, Helly Nahmad (NY) TAC, and the NFAE. esssma00X) 29, Upon information and belief, David Nalumzad is the person in de facto control of HINGI, having initially founded the gallery in New York in 1974 as Davlyn Gallery Tne.. and subsequently in 2000, renaming the gallery Helly Nabmaad Gallery Inc. while installing his son ‘and co-defendant, Helly Nahmad (New York) as a siominal director and owner of the company. 10. Upon information and belief, both before and after installing his son as a director and nominal owner of HNGI, David Nahmad maintained control of the operations at HNGI, held himself out to employees of the gallery as the “boss” and owner of the gallery, and exercised the power and authority to control the operations of HNGI. (Exhibit 3 - Dicker complaint 31-52) David Nohmad acted on behalf of HNGI at Art Basel exhibition in Miami, Florida, as recently as 2015. 11, Defendant, Helly Nahmad (New York), individually, is a resident of New York County and upon information and belief, a nominal owner of defendant, HINGI and in connection with this Painting, and otherwise an agent of David Nahmad, LAC, and the NFAE. 12, Upon information and belief, Helly Nahmad (London) is a member of the Nahmad family and the NFAB, who has an ownership interest in IAC by descent from his uncle Giuseppe Nahmad 43. This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendants HNGL, and Helly Nahmad (New York), individually, as domiciliaties of New York County. 14, This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendant David Nahmad within the meaning of New York's long-arm statute C.P.L.R, §302 (a)(1) by reason of his purposefully baving twansacted and transacting business within the state, and contracting and having contracted to supply goods in the state, transactions from which he, LAC, end the NFAE have reosanionnes) 3derived and continue to derive substantial revenue, much of which is deliberately received abroad. 15. Upon information and belief, defendant IAC is a foreign corporation, formed ‘under the laws of the Republic of Panama, and through which the Nahmad Family, headed by David Nahmad, uses IAC and FINGI as alter egos constituting de facto part of the NFAE which has purposefully transacted business, and continues to transact business, in New York County, New York, Geneva, Switzerland, London, England, and elsewhere throughout the world in a manner so as to conceal and confuse their identities, and hide revenues generated by the NFAE stemming from their art dealings. 16, This Court has specific jurisdiction and/or general jurisdiction of the defendants, 37. Upon information and belief, IAC purposefully transacted and continues to transact business in New York as an alter ego of, and under the control of, David Nahmad and through its agent, defendant Helly Nohmad (New York), and its alter ego HNGI, along with other Nahmad Family members, and others, including Sotheby's and Christie’s auction houses, ‘and numerous customers of NGI, for artwork allegedly “consigned to HNGI" by TAC that is sold through or shown in New York by HNGI and paid for abroad according to instructions from David Nahmad, JAC, or HNGI. 18. Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over claimed non-domiciliary defendant IAC within the meaning of New York's Jong-arm statute C.P-LR $302 (a)(1) by reason of its purposefully having transacted and transacting business within the state, both with regard to the exact Painting at issue herein (specific jurisdiction) and otherwise contracting and having conttacted to supply goods in this state, transactions from which they have derived and are continuing to derive substantial revenue in the millions of dallars: by swntame0eexs 4operating a principal office in New York City and by reason of CP.LR. §302(a\2), having committed a tortious act within the state, by refusing a rightful demand of an authorized representative of the estate of Oscar Stettiner, which acts are a basis of jurisdiction in this action. 19, Further, upon information and belief, defendant 1AC is an off-shore entity used by the NFAB, including members of the Nahmad family, as an instrumentality and artifice to hold their personal family interests in artworks, most of which ate held in an art storage facility at the free port of Geneva, Switzerland, See Bailey, Martin, “Dynasty Prepares to Share Its Family Secrets", Art News (Oct. 18, 2011) attached hereto as (Exhibit 4 at pp. 1-3.) 20. Upon information and belief, defendant IAC? operates as a sham or paper corporation that is indistinet and inextricably intertwined with both its known owners (David Nabmad and Helly Nahmad (London), although the percentage of ownership of the known ‘owners is still not yet known at this time) and unknown owners. TAC was established in such @ manner as to conceal both its assets and the identity and the connection of the company with its owners, (utilizing “beater” shares illegal in the United States) including David Nahmad and other members of the Nahmad family. 21. Upon information and belief. the sham characteristics of IAC include, but are not Jimited to, the following: a. Defendant David Nahmad, is currently the principal and exercises control over defendant TAC, (Bxhibit 7 article by Wealthx referring to David Nahinad being a co-owner of JAC; Exhibit 8 NY Times article referring to TAC being owned by Nahmad family): + The former principal of defendant IAC was the late Giuseppe Nahmad, who died in November 2012 He was eurrent IAC principal David Nahmad’s brother, end Helly Nahmad’s uncle. (Exhibit 5, Beyton Europe Lid. memorandum p.3, 6), According to the last wll and testament of Giuseppe Nahimad, upon his death, all of his assets, including his holdings in TAC, were bequeathed in equal shares to defendant David Nahmad, and to Helly Nahmad (London), who is the son of Ezra Nahmad, and principal of HNGL. (Exhibit 6 — last wil and testament of Guiseppe Nahmad), reosninnocxst 5>. The NFAB, acting through IAC, consigns artworks for sale to HNGI, which in turn sells or shows the art works in New York, but arranges for the payments for the art sales to be made in Geneva, while deliberately concealing how such proceeds are allocated to the different individuals and entities within the NFA: c. Defendant IAC was incorporated on September 6, 1995 in Panama by the law firm Mossack Fonseca & Co., a law firm widely known as a creator of shell companies to aid individuals in circumventing international sanctions, and allowing their clients to conceal the empty shell nature of the companies and their assets. (Exhibit 9): 4. Shell companies set up by Mossack Fonseca & Co. include those connected 10 close associates of Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad, and dictators Muammar Gaddafi and Robert Mugabe, established for purposes of concealing the source of funds, avoiding intemational sanctions, money Imundering, and other improper purposes. (Exhibit 9); e. _ TAC was incorporated with listed capital of only $10,000, and has never declared any increases in capital, nor has it reported any assets purchased or otherwise sold, nor does it declare any income or file any tax retums in Panama, New York, or anywhere else. (Exhibit 10); f Despite declaring no increase in assets other than the initial $10,000 capitalization, IAC has bought, owned, and sold millions of dollars in art works since its incorporation, including The Painting, which were funded by members of the NFAE. Upon information and belief, the NEAE deliberately conceals the source of any funds to acquire such inventory of att works as part of an claborate scheme to conceal the identity and intertwined activities of the truc owners of LAC. (Exhibit 3). Defendants disclosed no source of funding lomeanewacxs, 6TAC’s purchase of The Painting at issue in 1996, within a year of AC's incorporation, for $3.2 million dollars; g. Defendant IAC bas no physical address but only the Paname address for service of process of Mossack Fonseca & Co, The only address provided to Christie’s and Sotheby's, ot other parties with which IAC and the NFAE deal in eomection with auctioning of NEAE artworks, is the Swiss address of Rodolphe Haller, S.A.. the Geneva, Switzerland company that operates the warehouse in which the NFAE stores artworks; fh. Between 1991 and 1996, the only known phone number used by LAC was the phone number of Rodolphe Haller, S.A.. the warehouse company in Geneva, Switzerland (exhibie1); i. The IAC shell company fails to maintain adequate books and records, does not regularly uphold corporate formalities, inchiding not holding or recording board meetings oF other management meetings, has never filed a tax return, and does not issue financial statements showing any income; and nowhere reveals its finances to any government or tax authority; ‘The NFAE does not distinguish or keep any records of which artworks are from the personal collection of any of the individual members of the Nahmad family, or which artworks belong 10 TAC, which artworks are designated for sale. or which artworks belong to HINGI in New York, or HNGL in London, or simply “the Nahmad Family;” Kk. _ HINGI spends over $1.5 million a year in rent for the New York gallery, but deliberately understates its actual income by accumulating losses to be set off against any gains fom asset sales. (Exhibit 3, 18-21). Similarly, HNGL, first accumulates “losses” and then waites off profits against the “losses.” (Exhibit 12). No explanation of how or why HNGI or HINGL stays in business other than by the NFAE channeling of funds to and from its various lanerre e235 7sham entities for its own puxposes, including attempting to avoid jurisdiction in its principal place of business, New Yor 1 Defendant IAC has no actual employees, and the directors and officers listed for the company are actually employees of the Mossack Fonseca & Co. Law firm, and are the same individuals listed as Directors and Officers of thousands of other shell companies including one director who appears on the board of more than 11,000 other comporations, and another that appears on over 2,000 corporations) incorporated by the Mossaok Fonseca & Co. Jaw firm; m. Defendant Helly Nohmad received correspondence in New York on behalf of and as a representative of defendant IAC, offered to take clients 1o Geneva to sell artworks “owned!” by defendant IAC, and regularly comingled New York employees of HINGI (the New ‘York operation) with doing IAC business. (Exhibit 3, 423); and tn. The NFAF, and/or Nahmnad Family members regulatly transfer finds to cover IAC expenses. For example, the Panamanian annual franchise taxes, fees, and provision of directors of IAC, by way of Swiss attorneys sending funds to a subsidiary of the Mossack Fonseca & Co, law firm located in Tortola in the British Virgin Islands, 22. Upon information and belief, the NFAE deliberately engineers the profits and Josses of IAC 0. as to disguise any profits in Panama, New York, or anywhere else on their multimilfion dollar art dealings. 23, Upon information and belief, IAC does business at the New York, NY address and offices of HNGI, its alter ego. utilizing HINGJ's employees and nominal owner, among others, as its agents and the gallery as its alter ego. sers719 90033) 824. Upon information and belief, IAC is dominated and controlled by, and an alter ego of, David Nahmad and other members of the Nahmad family, including those named as defendants herein and others, See Vogel, Carol, “Christie’s Executive Leaves A Top Post”, New York Times, (June 18, 2009) Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 at p. 3; see also defendant HNGI’s ‘Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed August 6, 2004 in Beyton Europe, Ltd., v, Helly Nahmad Gallery. et al, (an IAC “consignment” ease) in New York County Supreme Court, Index# 603390/02, at 2004 WL 5951455 at p. 3, attached hereio as Exhibit 5. 25, Upon information and belief, defendant Helly Nahmad (New York) individually, FINGI, and JAC, act as alter egos and authorized representatives for David Nahmad in New York in making sales, purchases, trades, agreements, and transfers of artworks, and have directed payment for sales of artworks sold or shown in New York to JAC, David Nahmad or Giuseppe Nahmad in Switzerland, in an attempt to avoid jurisdiction in New York. See Exhibit 3 ]23-25, (IAC, HINGI, employees of HNGI, Helly Nahmad as agent, and possibly others, dizect customers to make payment to IAC or other Nahmad Family members in Geneva Switzerland and otherwise exercise full authority and control over ‘The Painting as alter egos for David Nahmad). 26. Upon information and belief, the artworks owned by the Nabmad defendants, the Nahmad family and IAC, are treated by David Nabmad, his alter egos including IAC and HNGT, the NFAE, and the art world, as a single private family collection, See Exhibit 4 at pages 1-2; Vogel, Carol, “Auction Season Opens with Little Enthusiasm”, New York Times, (November 3, 2008) attached hereto as Exhibit 13, at p. 2 (referring to The Painting which is the subject of this action as belonging to “the Nohmad Family"). See also Exhibit 23, the Nabmad Family Collection, lonsenoexay 927. Upon information and belief, together with other family members, David Nahmad has de facto control of the NFAE operation in New York, (since the death of Giuseppe Nahmad) including his alter ego, HNGJ. See “Sanader Acquires Works By Picasso And Il Maltese” in Nacional (Croatia) (October 12, 2010) attached hereto as Exhibit 14 at p. 3 See also Adams, ‘Susan, “The Ast of the Deal” Forbes (December 24, 2007) attached hereto as Exhibit 15 at p. 1 28. Upon information and belief, the Nahmad defendants including alter egos HNGI and JAC, continuously purchase, sell, trade, import and export millions of dollars worth of art to, from and through, the state of New York, (Exhibit 45 at p. 1). The Nahmad family is “one of the most powerful art-dealing dynasties to have emerged in recent decades” (Exhibit 4 at p. 1) and “have sold more works of art than anybody alive”, (Exhibit 15 at p. 1). In addition, the ‘Nahmad family’s holdings including through IAC are estimated between $3 billion to $4 billion. Exhibit 15 at p.2. 29. Upon information and belief, [AC and HNGI’s activities directly and as alter egos of David Nahmad and each other are so broad, extensive and continuous as 10 constitute purposefully doing business at a principal place of business in New York 30. Upon information and belief, the NFAE regularly intermixes and comingles the personal and business matters of David Nahmed, Helly Nahmad (New York), other members of, the Nahmad Family, and their various alter egos and agents so as to erase any line between them, in ways that include, but are not limited fo, the following: a. Helly Nahmad Gallery in New York regularly paid the personal expenses, for David Nahmad, including personal credit cards and personal checks (Exhibit 3, 27); b. David Nahmad routinely used and uses personnel from the Helly Nahmad Gallery Ine, in New York to collect personal funds, pay wages to David Nahmad’s household esosna 3) 10staff, distribute fimds to his family members, handle personal bills for Nahmad famfly living expenses, and prepare other correspondence concerning Nahmad family personal needs. (Exhibit 3, 429-31); c, Employees of Helly Nahmad Gallery Ine., New York were routinely asked to prepare invoices and other documentation not only for the HNGL, but also for IAC and individual Nehsnad family members. (Exhibit 3, 423-31); and d. During bis lifetime, correspondence to and from Guiseppe Nahmad on behalf of IAC were routinely handled by the staff of Helly Nabmad Gallery in New York, including payment claims, and by directing clients of the New York Gallery to make payments directly to IAC and or Guiseppe Nahmad in Geneva, (Exhibit 3, £23). 31. Upon information and belief, the NFAE consistently included HNGL and Helly Nahmed (London) in coordinating its operations, including in the planning of exhibits, and the display of the same works held by the NFAE. (Exhibit 3, 435-38) and exhibiting the family artwork collection. (Exhibit 23). 32, Upon information and belief, in displaying their art collection at various galleries and expositions, members of the Nahmad family and the NFAE deliberately conceal the role of TAC in buying, holding, and selling any artworks, and deseribe the artworks in various catalogues as belonging to the “Nahmad Family,” or “Courtesy of HNGL” 33, The relief requested is replevin, conversion, and declaratory judgment relief under the statutory and common law (including equity jurisdiction) of New York State, twnsene ocx uBACKGROUND Qn Information and Belief: 34, From early 1933, National Socialists (“Nazis”), a German political party, came to ‘occupy the majority of Europe under the totalitarian rule of Adolf Hitler until 1945. During this period, Hitler, a failed artist himself, commenced the most notorious art looting period in the history of the world, Among numerous other assaults on buman rights, the Nazis feverishly pursued an agenda of destroying, confiscating ot selling abroad art the Nazis considered “Jewish,” “degenerate” or “moder”, 35. Separately, the Nazis embarked on a systematic campaign to despoil all Jews in the “Reich” of their property. This spoliation occurred through boycotts, “Aryanizations” confiscatory tax and foreign exchange laws applicable only to Jews, sham transactions and outright confiscations. As the German Reich expanded during the period of Nazi aggression, these anti-Semitic confiscatory policies were enforced in Nazi-occupied tersitories. 36. Inthe late 1930s, the Nazi regime began to advance towards France. in May of 1940, the German Amy, under Nazi control, defeated French forces in the Battle of France. By June of 1940, an annistice was signed that designated the north and west of Franee as occupied Nazi territory. The rest of the country was allowed to exist as a free zone, without Nazi occupation. 37. Inoecupied France, the Nazis implemented anti-Semitic confiseatory policies and Jaws. 38. Oscar Stettiner was a Jewish art dealer who resided and worked in Paris in the 1930s. He owned an art gallery and had a personal art collection. jeanne 1239. Siettiner’s personal art collection contained a number of works including the 1918 Modigliani painting, “Seated Man with a Cane”. 40. In 1930, Stettiner loaned The Painting to the Venice Biennale, a world-famous art exhibition that occurs every two years, with his ownership of The Painting reflected in the catalog and documentation for the Venice Biennale in 1930. 41, ‘In the 1930 Veni Biennale catalogue, the Modigliani Painting was listed as ‘number 35 and as having been loaned to the Venice Biennale by Stettiner, Exhibit 16 attached is a true image of The Painting, also identifying Oscar Stettiner’s ownership of The Painting. (Exhibit 20) 42. On or about November 20, 1939, with the threat of the Nazi invasion looming, Stettiner fled Paris, leaving his personal art collection, including The Painting, 43, Stettiner fled towards his home in La Force, Dordogne, France, which was located in the unoccupied zone of France. He remained in La Force until his death on February 25, 1948, 44. Oscar Stettiner was survived by his wife, Renee Suzanna Magenties Stettiner and two children, son, Jacques Henti Stettiner and daughter Mavd Stettiner (See Exhibit 17 — Dunod Affidavit) 45. Jacques Stettiner died without issue, 46. Philippe Jacques Maestracci is the grandson and sole heir of Oscar Stettiner. ex it 17) 47, The Navis adopted a practice and policy of despoiling Jewish families of property located in the Occupied Zone by forced sales. luewsnonex B348. Pursuant to this practice and policy, the Nazis would appoint a “Temporary “Administrator” (“Commissaire Gerant”) to marshal and sell Jewish property and to tum the proceeds thereof over to the Nazi Reich, or its agents and servants. 49. Pursuant to this practice and policy, after the Stottiner Gallery closed due to the Nazi invasion of France in 1940, Marcel Philippon was appointed Temporary Administrator to sell Stettiner’s property. In 1943 and 1944, Philippon held four public auetions of Stettiner’s property. 50. On July 3, 1944, Philippon sold The Painting SI, The July 3, 1944 sale took place without Stettiner’s consent. 52, In 1946, following the end of WWTT, forced sales of Jewish property during the Nazi regime were declared null and void. Exbibit 18 French Court Order to return Painting, July 31, 1946. 53. Under New York Law, the July 3, 1944 sale was void since it occurted without the owner's consent in violation of International Law and New York's Law and public policy not to recognize forced sales under the Nazi regime. 54, Following World Wat IL, the U.S. State Department (consistent with our national policy, intemational agreements, and the laws of other jurisdietions including France) relieved ‘American courts of any restraints on jurisdiction to unwind the official acts of the Nazi regime. 55, Following WWII, American courts have exercised jurisdiction to undo acts of ‘Nazi spoliation under the “Bernstein Exception” to the Act of State Doctrine. See Bernstein v. ‘Nederlandsche-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart-Maatshappij, 210 F.2d 375 (2% Cir. 1954) 56. In 1946, Oscar Stettiner commenced legal proceedings to recover The Painting from Philippon and the person who purchased The Painting at the July 3, 1944 sale. reosariopacx 4SJ. Despite the French court order ruling of ownership in his favor, (Exhibit 18) Stettiner and the court officer appointed to assist him were unsuccessful in finding The Painting. ‘(Exhibit 19) 58. Further upon information and belief, from 1946 to the present, Stettiner and his have made reasonable and diligent efforts to recover Stettiner’s art collection. 59. Upon information and belief, in 1996, at Christie’s in London, over 50 years after its confiscation, The Painting was auctioned and sold by an anonymous seller, with an inaccurate provenance that attributed its prior ownership to an owner prior to Oscar Stettiner in 1930, and ‘with a false claim that it was exhibited as No. 16 in the 1930 Venice Biennale, (See Exhibit 21), 60. No. 16 in the 1930 Venice Biennale was not the 1918 Modigliani Painting “Seated Man with a Cane”. (Exhibit 20.) 61. Since ‘The Painting was mis-described as #16 with the wrong. title, (Exhibit 20, p. 2), that misidentification made The Painting nearly impossible to trace while The Painting’s comect provenance as #3$ was, and remained deliberately misstated, with no mention of Stettiner at the 1996 sale. (Exhibit 21) 62. The 1996 sale provenance “Anon, sale, Paris, cirea 1940-45 to J. Livengood, Paris and thence by descent to the present owners” made it clear that The Painting’s ownership during World War If was conspicuously unaccounted for, and that Mr. Livengood could no longer be consulted. 63. On information and belief, Christie’s declined to furnish further information on request, but id notify the purchaser of The Painting of the Estate’s inquity and claim of spoliation, TAC took no action. oxserpost 1564. Upon information and belief, the defendants and JAC purposefully exhibited The Painting at HNGI in New York and elsewhere in 2005-2006, in furtherance of their business purposes to inerease their exposure and financial returns in the future, without attribution to, or mention of IAC. 65. Thereafter, the defendants David Nahmad and LAC, as alter ego, and their agents offered The Painting for sale at auction at Sotheby's in New York County at a November 3, 2008 auction sale. Attached hereto as Exhibit 22 is a true copy of an excerpt of Sotheby's November 3, 2008 sale catalogue. Sotheby's published ‘The Painting bearing the title, Homme Asis (Appuyé sure une cane} [transtated herein, as “Seated Man (leaning on a cane)"| and having been exhibited in 2005 through the defendant Gallery HINGI among others. Again, no mention of IAC appeared. 66. Only then was The Painting correctly listed as having been number 35, (not number 16) in the 1930 Venice Biennale, thus revealing and confirming for the first time, since 1944 The Painting’s connection to Stettiner and his ownership. See Exhibit 22, p. 2. 67. The Painting failed to sell. There were no bids at the November 3. 2008 auction sale, See Exbibit 13, p.2. 68. Although the party in possession claiming ownership of The Painting after 1996 jvas still unknown, and upon information and belief deliberately conccaled by the defendants, and by Christie's and later Sotheby's, the total lack of any bids at that 2008 auction sale was because of The Painting’s obvious connection to the Nazis confiscation of art owned by Jewish persons during WWII and, in particular, from Oscar Stettiner. susrian00%9) 1669. Upon information and belief Sotheby’s later also refused to furnish the identity of the seller upon request, but notified it of the claim of spoliation regarding The Painting. LAC took no action with regard thereto. 70. Upon information and belief, after the failure of any bids at Sotheby's in 2008, the defendants, realizing that the newly revealed provenance identified that The Painting was confiscated by the Nazis during WWII and its connection to Stettiner, transported The Painting to Switzerland, where it allegedly presently remains in a warehouse under the custody and control of the defendants including David Nahmad, his aher ego JAC and still undisclosed other members, nominees, curators and agents of the NFAF and the Nahmad Family Art collection. 71. At the time of the newly revealed 2008 provenance, plaintiff did not know of the newly revealed provenance or the claimed owner of The Painting. 72. On February 28, 2011, Philippe Maestracci, sole heir of Oscar Stettiner, through counsel, wrote to the defendants, Helly Nahmad and HNGI and demanded return of The Painting, ‘That letter elicited no response or information regarding claimed ownership of The Painting and was ignored. 73. On March 29, 2011, Philippe Macstracci again wrote to the Helly Nahmad Gallery, through counsel, secking a response. 74, This elicited no response or claim of ownership information yet again 75. Due to HNG?s lack of response, Philippe Maestracci believing HNGI to be the claimed owner, deemed that HNGI had refused (o return The Painting and brought suit in rem and against HINGI in the Southern Distriet of New York Federal Court. esnevocay 776, Only afler Maestracei brought a Federal action in New York for The Painting’s return, did the Nahmads reveal, and Maesttacei and his attorneys first become aware, of IAC’s existence, (but not IAC’s location or address) and claimed ownership. 77. Prior to that time, The Painting had been exhibited multiple times. In each instance without identification of TAC as the claimed owner. Therefore, demand had only been made of a non-owner; and by a person who defendants claimed lacked standing to make the demand. 78. Asa tesult of the addition of [AC in the New York Federal amended complaint, diversity jurisdiction was lost by reason of a French plaintiff and a Panamanian defendant and the federal action in New York was withdrawn without prejudice. 79. An action was thereafter begun in New York County Supreme Court by Maestracei as sole heir of his grandfather, Oscar Stettiner. 80. On October 21, 2014, Mr. Gowen, first made demand upon IAC, through the attorney who appeated for IAC in the New York action, by moving to be added as a plaintiff in the action demanding ‘The Painting’ s return 81, IAC opposed his motion, and continued to seek unsuccessfully to revoke his letters of appointment and to avoid return of The Painting, 82, The Limited Ancillary Administrator could not have made a demand prior to his existence as such administrator on June 27, 2013, and three years have not elapsed since that time. JAC, having refused, has persisted in its refusal to return The Painting. 83. Upon information and belief, the fair market value of The Painting today exceeds $25 million ($25,000,000) U.S, dollars. Exhibit 13, p. 2. ressonrapoex) 18AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIC ‘(Declaratory Judgment — title) $4. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 85. At the time of the commencement of this action, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the duly appointed administrator of the Estate of Oscar Stettiner, George W. Gowen, ‘was ond is entitled to demand the immediate return of possession of The Painting 10 the Estate as of the issuance of his Letters on June 27, 2013. 86, Defendants and IAC refused his demand and persist in a claim that IAC js the sole owner and possessor of The Painting by reason of purchase in 1996 at an auction at Christie's in London, England. 87. By reason of IAC’s long maintained concealment of its ownership and by 2 redacted version of its alleged 1996 purchase invoice submitted to this Court without court permission, conecaling any address for IAC, TAC and its alter egos are equitably estopped by their actions from pleading the Statute of Limitation as a defense to Administrator Gowen's demand. 88, This case involves an actual controversy over the title to The Painting. 89, Plaintiff Gowen, as administrator of the Estate of Oscar Stettiner, is entitled to the return of The Painting to the Estate. 90, Plaintiff requests a declaration entitling the Limited Ancillary Administrator to possession and ditecting same, and such other appropriate relief ageinst (AC and any alter ego or other person or entity who may intervene and assert a claim to The Painting. saneannoces) 19AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Conversion — damages and attorneys? fees for Wrongful Withholding and interfering with possession of The Painting) 91. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein, 92. Plaintiff Gowen demanded the retum of The Painting from IAC in writing on October 21, 2014 by his motion to become a plaintiff in this Supreme Court action secking The Painting’s return, 93, The Nahmad defendants including David Nabmad, and IAC and HNGT as his alter egos, have deliberately ignored and refused the Limited Ancillary Administrator's demand since that time. 94, Three years have not elapsed since that demand. 95. The defendants’ wrongful retention caused the Estate to expend monies and atiomey fees in pursuing The Painting which the Stettiner Estate rightfully owns. 96. By refusing to return The Painting to the Stettiner Estate, the true owner thereof, and its Limited Ancillary Administrator, the defendants including [AC and David Nabmad, have wrongfully interfered with the Estate’s rightful possession and thereby caused damages in the amount of the highest intervening fair market value of ‘The Painting, the cost of investigating, translating and other expenses, together with attorneys’ fees and all expenses of this action which the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this action. AS_AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION ‘(Replevin) 97. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 98. Plaintiff is entitled (o the immediate possession of The Painting on behalf of the estate of Oscar Stettiner, sontanapacx 20