Hugo Nathan

[3] His collection included Dutch art (Josef Israels, "Alte Frau"), German art, with works by Max Liebermann ("Schreitende Bauerné, 1894/95, "Selbstbildnis" 1908, "Reiter am Meeresstrand" 1901, "Schulgang in Laren" 1899,), Wilhelm Trübner ("Kunstpause", "Brustbild einer Frau", "Blick auf Kloster Seon", "Kirchengang im Klster Seeon", "Atelierecke", "Waldinneres", "Vorgang ds Stift Neuburg", "Weg am Buchenwald", "Neustift bei Heidelberg", "Screinerwerkstatt") and Max Slevoft ("Spaziergan"), as well as Swiss art by Ferdinand Hodler (Aussicht vom Thunersee bei Niesen" 1876, "Jungfrau, Mönch und Eiger", "Mönch in Abendbeleuchtung").

She returned briefly to Germany around May 1938 to sell her house, and was forced by the Nazi government to transfer six paintings remaining in her home to the Staedel Art Institute.

[12] Nathan's heirs also contacted the Toledo Museum of Art requesting the return of a Gauguin that she had sold in 1938 to three dealers.

[13][14][15] In 2013, Simon J. Frankel and Ethan Forrest defended the museums' use of legal tactics such as declaratory judgement against Nathan.

[16] In 2015, the World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO) criticized the use of procedural defenses by museums and cited the Nathan case as an example.