Abbas v. United States, 842 F.3d 1371

Pre‑WWII German bearer bonds were issued and many were repurchased for retirement but not cancelled; after WWII many such bonds were displaced during the Soviet occupation and later circulated among various holders.
Germany and the U.S. implemented postwar procedures (the German 1952 Validation Law and a 1953 U.S.–Germany Validation Procedures Treaty and a "Certain Matters" Treaty) creating administrative validation procedures and barring enforcement in U.S. courts until bonds were validated.
The London Debt Agreement (1953) fixed settlement terms for German external debts and offered a pathway for creditors to be paid, with Germany prioritizing validated settling holders; Germany’s payment under that agreement concluded in 2010.
Abbas sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims in 2015, alleging the 1953 treaty amounted to a Fifth Amendment regulatory taking of his right to enforce bonds against Germany.
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, holding Abbas’s takings claim accrued in 1953 and was time‑barred under the six‑year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2501).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did Abbas’s takings claim against the U.S. accrue?	Accrual occurred in 2010 when Germany finished paying settling validated bondholders.	Accrual occurred when the U.S. entered the 1953 treaty (1953), the allegedly interfering act.	Accrued in 1953; claim is time‑barred under § 2501.
Is the timing of Germany’s payments relevant to accrual against the U.S.?	Germany’s payments determine when the injury became concrete and thus when Abbas could sue the U.S.	Germany’s actions are separate; the U.S. interference occurred in 1953, independent of later German payments.	Germany’s payments are irrelevant to accrual against the U.S.
Does Abbas have standing (own property at time of taking)?	Abbas acquired the bonds later but asserts he holds the underlying rights taken by the treaty.	Only persons with a property interest at the time of taking may recover; Abbas lacked such interest in 1953.	Court of Federal Claims found Abbas lacked standing; appellate court did not reach this alternative ground.
Did Abbas state a plausible Fifth Amendment takings claim?	Treaty terms effectively extinguished his right to enforce the bonds, constituting a regulatory taking.	Even if asserted, the claim is untimely and Abbas lacked a compensable property interest at the relevant time.	Dismissal affirmed as time‑barred; court did not resolve the merits of the takings theory.

Alliance of Descendants of Tex. Land Grants v. United States, 37 F.3d 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (treaty‑based takings accrue when treaty goes into effect)
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008) (28 U.S.C. § 2501 is a jurisdictional bar with a six‑year limitations period)
CRV Enters., Inc. v. United States, 626 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (only those with a property interest at time of taking may recover)
Mortimer Off Shore Servs., Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Germany, 615 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2010) (treatment of validation procedures for German prewar bonds)
World Holdings, LLC v. Federal Republic of Germany, 701 F.3d 641 (11th Cir. 2012) (postwar German bond validation and settlement context)
Fulwood v. Federal Republic of Germany, 734 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2013) (similar claims against Germany involving prewar bonds)
Korber v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 739 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir. 2014) (related litigation involving allegedly the same bonds)