Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
By Louis M. Solomon
We have previously
posted on the significance of the international practice decisions by the Second
and Eleventh Circuits' decisions relating to validation procedures preventing Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
Off Shore Services, Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Germany, Nos. 08-1783-cv,
08-2358-cv (2d Cir. 7/26/10) [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version available from lexisONE Free Case Law]; and World Holdings v. The
Federal Republic of Germany, No. 09-14359 (11th Cir. 8/9/10)
[enhanced version / unenhanced version ]. In both cases the Circuits rejected the argument that
the existence of the validation procedure precluded subject matter jurisdiction,
on the theory that there was no inconsistency between a 1953 Treaty providing for
the validation and the FSIA. Said the Circuits, the Treaty was adopted
long before the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act was enacted in the U.S. in 1976,
and there was no irreconcilable conflict between compliance with the Treaty and
The plaintiffs in both cases, however, had
not complied with the allegedly requisite process, so whether they stated a claim
was yet to be decided by the Circuits.
Comes now the
District Court decision in Sovereign
Bonds Exchange LLC v. Federal Republic of Germany, et al., Case No. 10-21944-CIV-ALTONAGA/Simonton
(S.D. Fla. July 2011) [enhanced version].
The case addresses whether the plaintiff is entitled to collect on bearer bonds
called German Provincial and Communal Banks Consolidated Agricultural Loan (Provincial
Bonds). Listed and sold on the New York Stock Exchange, the Provincial
Bonds defaulted when pre-war Germany stopped paying on the bonds in 1933.
On the other hand, post-war Germany's "obligations did not arise until reunification
in 1990″ given that West Germany, "to help establish 'normal commercial relations'",
committed to paying its prewar liabilities - this pursuant to a London Debt Agreement,
or LDA. However, to obtain payment pursuant the LDA, a bondholder needed
to assent to the other provisions of the LDA, which apparently included compliance
with the Validation Law at issue in the Circuit decisions referred to above.
The plaintiffs in this case did not follow the Validation Law.
The District Court determined that bonds
originating in East Germany did not give the Court subject matter jurisdiction,
whereas the Court did have subject matter jurisdiction over West German bonds.
For purposes of the East German bonds, the District Court relied on the Second Circuit's
decision in Mortimer. With respect to the West German bonds, the District
Court found that failure to follow the Validation Law precluded a claim of recovery,
stating "Sovereign's Provincial Bonds must first be validated in order for Plaintiff
to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)".
International Practice Law Blog for more analysis of international
and foreign law issues.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with
us through our corporate site.