-Sahibnoor Singh Sidhu
Public museums have for a very long time relied on long-term loans from private collectors. However, these forms often are susceptible to subsequent changes and therefore introduce a structural risk to the curation. It is not uncommon to enter a large world-class museum and see a number of family names right next to the most prestigious masterpieces. This is simply because these major private holdings have been integrated as permanent displays at these institutions. However, the legal dispute surrounding the estate of the late Swiss businessman and art collector Werner Merzbacher exposes the fragile foundation on which such arrangements rest. This dispute, as I discuss in this article, shows that when internal family governance ends up in litigation, it has an adverse effect on the stability of the hosting museum, potentially disrupting public cultural access.
This conflict is centred around the roughly $742 million modern art collection, which has been on a long-term loan to the Kunsthaus Zurich. Initially made by Merzbacher himself, it has come into contention following his death in 2024, when it emerged that a handwritten amendment to his will (executed five months before he passed away and was undergoing treatment for cancer) altered the distribution of the estate. Under the revised document, instead of a three-way split among his children and the descendants of a deceased daughter, it now became a four-way division with a new beneficiary, namely his asset manager. His descendants have challenged the validity of this amendment, citing that Merzbacher, who was struggling medically and was therefore incapable of validly executing the changes, directly threatens the continuity of the loan of his collection to the Kunsthaus in Zurich.
The Structural Fragility of Institutional Bailments
The Merzbacher litigation highlights the systemic operational risks that museums accept when they rely on private bailment agreements. A long-term loan contract (this was scheduled to run through 2038 with automatic three-year renewals), remains subject to the underlying legal title of the bailor. In this instance, while the loan was framed as an act of public gratitude to Switzerland, reflecting Merzbacher’s history as a child refugee who fled Nazi Germany, the legal control over the works remains tied to the estate administration. The heirs retain distinct rights concerning the collection, meaning that any judicial restructuring of the estate can alter or terminate the loan agreement without the museum’s consent.
This dependency places public institutions in a vulnerable position. When a museum dedicates physical space and financial resources to housing a private collection, it operates under the assumption of long-term stability to make the initial investment a viable investment. However, because the museum lacks absolute ownership, it can only be an observer to the probate disputes of its benefactors. If a court invalidates a will or liquidates assets to satisfy estate claims, the museum has no legal standing to prevent the dispersal of the collection, exposing a structural flaw in the modern acquisition model.
The Compounding Pressures on Museum Curation
The vulnerabilities exposed by the Merzbacher case are further complicated by the broader regulatory and social scrutiny facing Swiss institutions regarding private collections. The Kunsthaus Zurich has recently faced significant public pressure over its housing of the E.G. Bührle Collection, a long-term loan that drew intense criticism due to origin gaps linked to Nazi-era persecution. The resulting public protests and artist boycotts eventually forced a formal settlement with the historical heirs. This further highlighted the instability in institutional association with unverified or contested private holdings and the immediate reputational consequences that it can cause.
In the present dispute, the probate litigation intersects with these existing institutional pressures, and this makes the management of the private collection housed in a museum increasingly complex. The combination of title disputes, asset tracking failures, and legacy challenges leaves museums highly exposed to disruption. As private fortunes are transferred to the next generation or in this case potentially external managers, the agreements that historically sustained museum relationships are being challenged in legal cases. For institutions like the Kunsthaus Zurich, the upcoming trial serves as a clear warning that without absolute title, curatorial displays remain vulnerable to the decisions of probate courts. At the same time, it also serves as a reminder for legislatures to allow the intervention of such institutions, even if to a limited degree. In the probate proceedings, given that both their revenue and reputation would be at stake based upon the decision in the trial.