Holocaust Victims of Bank Theft v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank
807 F. Supp. 2d 689
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Plaintiffs—Holocaust victims and heirs—sue Magyar Nemzeti Bank (and other international banks) for alleged wealth expropriation, theft, and withholding of assets tied to Holocaust victims, asserting genocide and related claims, including aid and abetting and constructive trust/accounting.
- Defendants challenge the court’s subject matter and personal jurisdiction, and raise forum non conveniens, statutes of limitations, political question, FSIA immunity, acts of state, and failure-to-state-a-claim defenses.
- The court’s memorandum denies the motions to dismiss in full, finding subject matter jurisdiction under the ATS/customary international law, personal jurisdiction over several defendants, and no basis to dismiss on forum non conveniens; and it declines to adjudicate several defenses at the pleadings stage.
- Court recognizes potential tolling and equitable defenses could affect timeliness, but generally allows the case to proceed on the current record.
- Summary posture: no dismissal is warranted at this stage; issues require further development in discovery and at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction under ATS and international norms | Plaintiffs rely on non-U.S./U.S. treaties and customary international law. | Defendants contend lack of jurisdiction for non-self-executing treaties and lack of a valid ATS basis. | Court finds subject matter jurisdiction exists; claims rest on customary international law and norms recognized by Sosa and Kadic. |
| Personal jurisdiction over OTP and MKB | Plaintiffs show extensive continuous and systematic contacts. | Defendants contest sufficient contacts for jurisdiction. | Court finds general personal jurisdiction over OTP and MKB. |
| Forum non conveniens | Hungarian forum as available/adequate; dismissal appropriate for convenience. | Hungarian forum is superior; dismissal warranted. | Court denies forum non conveniens dismissal; US forum maintains interest and convenience are compelling. |
| Immunity under FSIA (Magyar) | Takings exception applies; Magyar may be liable; waiver issues unresolved. | Magyar immune unless takings exception applies; waiver unresolved. | Takings exception applicable at this stage; immunity defenses to be considered at summary judgment if warranted. |
| Failure to state a claim; successor liability and standing | Plaintiffs allege plausible successor liability and injuries. | Arguments about standing and successor liability warrant dismissal. | Motions denied; claims plausibly state successor liability and standing for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (norms of international law, law of nations basis for ATS claims)
- Kadiç v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1995) (genocide as a well-established norm of international law)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir.2010) (corporate liability under ATS debated; concurring view supports liability with humanitarian aims)
- Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., 557 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (N.D. Cal.2008) (non-self-executing treaties as evidence of customary international law; precursors to Sosa")