Lawyer Nicholas O’Donnell summarizes the state of affairs surrounding the Gurlitt Hoard a year after its existence was made known through the German press:

What is especially clear is how dissatisfied essentially everyone is with the state of affairs.  Focus, the same magazine that got the ball rolling a year ago, published an article this week in which it reported some claimants are considering claims against the Task Force itself.  Documents remain unavailable, and the pace of response, if any, has been slow.  Any even as to one painting that the Task Force recommended be returned to David Toren, Germany is resisting Toren’s lawsuit rather than giving the painting back.

With regard to the pending decision by the Kunstmuseum Bern, Ronald Lauder stepped into the looted art fray once again in an interview with Der Spiegel to argue that the museum cannot ethically accept the bequest, and that it will face an “avalanche of lawsuits” if it does.  As to the latter point, I’m not so sure relative to the current possession by Germany.  The biggest challenge for claimants has been figuring out whether they are claimants, since so little is known—still—about what there is.  But once known, Bavaria and Germany are open targets, presumably in Germany but certainly in the United States pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.  If and/or when the artwork goes to the museum, a private Swiss foundation, however, the courts of the United States at least are quite unlikely to have jurisdiction over any such claims.  The museum and Germany seem to be engaged in some sort of negotiation about what happens after the bequest is accepted, but as with everything else, details are sparse.

One Year After Gurlitt Revelation, No One is Pleased (Art Law Report)