Korber v. Bundesrepublik Deutscheland, No. 12-3269 (7th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

After the end of World War II, holders of public and private bonds issued in Germany demanded repayment. Germany had suspended payment on many bonds during the 1930s, but some were not due until the 1950s or 1960s. A Debt Agreement involving 21 creditor nations specified that Germany would pay valid debts outstanding in 1945. Germany enacted a Validation Law requiring holders to submit foreign debt instruments for determination of whether the claims were genuine. In 1953 the U.S. and West Germany agreed by treaty (applicable to Germany as reconstituted in 1990) that the debts would be paid only if found to be legitimate. Holders had five years to submit documents for validation by a New York panel. Later claims went to an Examining Agency in Germany. Decisions were subject to review in Germany. Plaintiffs sued in 2008 under international diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(2), to recover on bearer bonds issued or guaranteed by Germany before the war. One holder never submitted to validation. The other submitted bonds to a panel in Germany, which found them ineligible, and did not seek review. The district court dismissed, holding that the Treaty is binding and that the suit was barred by a 10-year (Illinois) statute of limitations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the Treaty amounted to a taking without just compensation. The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1), authorizes whatever compensation the Constitution requires and the Supreme Court has stated that there is no constitutional obstacle to an international property settlement. The Treaty is not self-executing; the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1350, cannot be used to contest the acts of foreign nations within their own borders. How Germany administers the validation process is for German courts to consider. The case was also barred by the limitations period.

Download PDF

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 12- 3269 ELFRIEDE KORBER and CHRISTOPHER MARK, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND, et al., Defendants- Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 08 C 6254 Edmond E. Chang, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED JANUARY 6, 2014 DECIDED JANUARY 9, 2014 ____________________ es. Before EASTERBROOK, WILLIAMS, and TINDER, Circuit Judg- EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. After Germany surrendered in May 1945, holders of bonds issued by public and private entities in that nation demanded repayment. Germany had suspended payment on many foreign- held bonds during the 1930s, but some pre- war bonds were not due until the 1950s or 1960s. A multinational agreement among 21 creditor na- tions and the Federal Republic of Germany which at the No. 12- 3269 2 time meant the LÃ¤nder that had been occupied by the United States, United Kingdom, and France specified that Germa- ny would pay valid debts outstanding on May 8, 1945. This pact, called the London Debt Agreement, gives priority to creditors who accept diminished payoffs. The Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic (the LÃ¤nder constitut- ing East Germany) did not participate. Contemporaneously with negotiation of the London Debt Agreement, West Germany enacted a Validation Law requir- ing holders of foreign debt instruments to submit them to panels that would determine whether the claims were genu- ine. Some bonds had been bought back in the markets but stolen toward the end of the war; West Germany sought to ensure that these retired debt instruments were not paid a second time and that no counterfeit instruments would be paid. In April 1953 the United States and West Germany agreed by treaty that foreign debts contracted before the end of World War II would be paid only if found by a validation panel to be legitimate. 4 U.S.T. 885 (1953). The parties agree that this treaty applies to Germany as reconstituted by the merger of East and West Germany in 1990. Holders had five years to submit their documents for validation by a panel in New York City. Any later claim for validation goes to an Ex- amining Agency in Germany. The claimant must show a good reason for the delay and establish the instruments provenance. Decisions adverse to claimants are subject to judicial review in German courts. Article II of the Treaty adds that no instrument within the scope of the Treaty and Validation Law may be enforced unless it has first been vali- dated by a panel in New York or Germany. 3 No. 12- 3269 Plaintiffs filed this suit in 2008 under the international diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(2), seeking to recov- er on bearer bonds that Germany had issued or guaranteed before World War II began. One holder has never submitted the bonds to a validation panel. The other submitted them to a panel in Germany, which found them ineligible, and did not seek judicial review of that decision. In response to defendants request for the suit s dismis- sal, both plaintiffs contend that the Treaty is invalid because it takes their property without just compensation. The dis- trict court held that the Treaty is binding and that the suit, which seeks to collect on un- validated instruments, must be dismissed. The court added that the suit is barred by the statute of limitations, which the judge deemed to be a ten- year period drawn from Illinois law. (Illinois is the state in which the district court sits.) The court s opinions cover some other issues, such as whether payment of the bonds is a commercial activity for the purpose of the Foreign Sover- eign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 11, and whether par- ticular defendants were served with process, but those ques- tions have dropped out. Appellees brief does not contend that the defendants are immune under the FSIA or that ser- vice on any defendant was improper. Despite the passage of time since the 1953 Treaty speci- fied how bonds could be enforced, recent years have seen an uptick in claims seeking to recover in federal courts. Some holders have argued that their claims did not accrue until 2010, when Germany made the final payments on bonds processed under the Agreement. These suits have been uni- formly unsuccessful. See Fulwood v. Germany, 734 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2013); World Holdings, LLC v. Germany, 701 F.3d 641 (11th No. 12- 3269 4 Cir. 2012); Mortimer Off Shore Services, Ltd. v. Germany, 615 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2010). The first, second, and eleventh circuits have held that bondholders lose either because of the Trea- ty s language or because the claims are time- barred. Our plaintiffs have raised constitutional arguments in an effort to circumvent the obstacles created by the Treaty and the other circuits decisions. The attempt to get around this sixty- year- old treaty is unavailing. The Constitution s fifth amendment does not forbid the taking of private property. Instead it requires just compensa- tion for taken property. The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1), authorizes the Court of Federal Claims to award whatever compensation the Constitution requires. It follows that the 1953 Treaty cannot be unconstitutional as a prohib- ited taking. A person who thinks that the 1953 Treaty takes private property should use the Tucker Act remedy. See, e.g., Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1, 12 16 (1990); Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1017 19 (1984); Regional Rail Re- organization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 126 36 (1974). It is tempting to end the opinion here, but in Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981), the Supreme Court, while observing that claimants could resort to the Tucker Act, id. at 688 90, also stated that there is no constitutional obstacle to an international property settlement. The agree- ment contested in Dames & Moore, among the United States, Iran, and Algeria, resolved the dispute that began when dip- lomats and their families were taken hostage at the United States Embassy in Tehran. The agreement established the Iran United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague. All claims (including contract claims that predated Iran s 1979 revolu- tion) must be submitted to the Tribunal, whose dispositions 5 No. 12- 3269 are final. Litigation of claims outside the Tribunal is forbid- den. The Court observed that settlements of private claims are a traditional, and valid, part of peacemaking, see 453 U.S. at 679 80, and added that the United States power to strike such bargains with other nations may be exercised by execu- tive agreement as well as by treaty. Iran s refusal to pay claims made by foreign nationals was not a taking by the United States; this nation does not guarantee other nations sovereign debt. Likewise Germa- ny s refusal to pay claims based on bonds it issued or guar- anteed before the end of World War II cannot be thought a taking by the United States of America. That the United States and Germany agreed in 1953 to a process that will lead to payment of some but not all claims is an ordinary part of peacemaking and not an affront to the Constitution. Diplomacy requires compromise. Many governments are reluctant to pay debts incurred by predecessors that have been overthrown in revolution (e.g., Iran) or lost a war (e.g., the Nazi regime in Germany). Indeed, the United States itself did not ensure payment of debts incurred within its own borders by the states that attempted to secede in 1861. The history summarized in Dames & Moore shows that diplomat- ic dispositions of private financial claims against other sov- ereigns, designed to facilitate the establishment of peaceful relations among nations, have occurred throughout Ameri- can history. We cannot see any basis for a constitutional dis- tinction between the diplomatic resolution of private claims against Iran and those against Germany. Plaintiffs maintain that Germany has not carried out all its obligations under the 1953 Treaty. That contention should be made to the Department of State rather than to a district No. 12- 3269 6 judge. The 1953 Treaty is not self- executing; the United States and West Germany made promises to each other, not directly to private citizens. Decisions such as MedellÃn v. Tex- as, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), show that private parties can be the intended beneficiaries of treaties without having a right to enforce them in court. Plaintiffs do not point to any language in the 1953 Treaty conferring enforcement rights on private parties; to the contrary, the Treaty forbids private suits based on non- validated claims. It is far from clear to us that Ger- many has fallen short of its commitments; Examining Agen- cies still exist in Germany, and judicial review of adverse de- cisions is available. But because this treaty is not self- executing, diplomatic rather than judicial channels are the appropriate ones for consideration of plaintiffs grievances. According to plaintiffs, a judicial order requiring Germa- ny to improve its validation process may issue under the Al- ien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. §1350, even if not directly under the 1953 Treaty. That contention did not survive Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013), which holds that §1350 cannot be used to contest the acts of foreign na- tions taken within their own borders. How Germany admin- isters the validation process is for diplomats or German courts to consider. Because plaintiffs lack validated claims, their suits must be dismissed. Lest silence invite suits on claims validated in coming years, we add that we agree with World Holdings, 701 F.3d at 653 54, and the district court that the statute of limi- tations independently bars a judicial role in collection. Hold- ers could have submitted their bonds for validation decades ago, whether or not they accepted the speed- for- amount tradeoff under the London Debt Agreement; those who de- 7 No. 12- 3269 layed have only themselves to blame. Plaintiffs tell us that international law lacks a statute of limitations for the en- forcement of sovereign debt which is true but irrelevant. These bonds were issued under German law, and perhaps under U.S. law or other nations law too (they were designed for sale to non- German investors, and some of the instru- ments covered by the 1953 Treaty were traded on U.S. ex- changes). The applicable periods of limitations are those provided by Germany, by jurisdictions in which the bonds were sold, and by agreement of the parties reflected in the instruments themselves. Litigation in the 2010s is far too late under any of those sources of law. AFFIRMED

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.