good morning honors me please the court phonetical just eleven say or for the plaintiffs in this case the core issue of this appeal is very clear and it revolves around the statue of limitations i don't think anybody of good faith would find that there wasn't justice on the part of the plaintiffs in this case the issue is whether or not they're going to be able to recover we basically stand or fall on the garcia persuasive effect on this court we have striking similarities in terms of the core issue the core issue being whether or not the statue of limitations began to run when the saigon bra whether the statue of limitations began to run when we made a formal demand on the part of these people the vietnamese refugees now americans at the time we filed our formal complaint in this matter where what law do we apply we we know the result under new york law we're not quite sure what the law is under vietnamese law what's the california rule the california rule well this is for you to decide i believe that the persuasive in the california law if california law were to apply it would say that there is no statute of limitations with regard to deposits that are made with a bag that would be the case if it were california law why do we apply or should we apply california well i don't know that you can or should specifically but i believe the premise of our position in this case is that there has been a tolling even with regard to new york law what we have is a situation under garcia which was decided on the basis of new york law by the court of appeals of new york which of course is there supreme court the court of appeals in that case in a strikingly similar case said there was no unequivocal repudiation and therefore there was no in the sense and anticipatory breach that could or should have been relied upon by the plaintiffs in that case here if you if you inquired do you have my deposit and the bank responds not saying you've made a request or demand and we're denying it but rather we don't have your deposits the government of  has is that not the equivalent of he and i garcia says no and garcia the court said the letter from chase merely recounted the actions of the cuban government meaning taking over the money and  referring quires to the national bank of cuba precisely the situation here in the court the bank said well bring the communist regime or whatever they call it in terms of its official name look over the money and see them about your money now could that be inferred that there was a pretty yes but the garcia court found that that was not an unequivocal repudiation and therefore did not require the statute to run  where is the money and the statement saying you can have your money you're not entitled to it factually speaking the allegations that we have made follow exactly the type of response and inquiry and a response that says well your money's over there go see them and after all why did these people go there you find out the asians are proven to be correct their world not allowing vietnamese in one case an american serviceman who was married means to recover their money at the same time they were advertising to take and people's money assuring them that their money would be safe and why wouldn't people believe that if they didn't garcia this is an international bank chase manhattan citi bank these banks are known to be international nature we know as a matter of logic you don't put money in a little strong box in saigon it goes out and it's invested given it's an interesting little principle of vietnamese law a branch can't be at least at the time it branch cannot be an independent entity it must be part of the corporate governance was that made is that a recently discovered item included in your brief did or did chase and citi corp all along tell your clients that they've got the money regardless and let you know as well that we are all one entity the known question number two the bank never said we repudiate this or we're not responsible for this because there's some branch in saigon that shut down but rather they advertise themselves as an international ban of international reputation where your money would be secure if you put the money into our bank and just like our c e o our people are playing to us would not have put the money in that bank if that money wasn't going to be in the their view as they saw it as they relied upon secure no matter what happened after all if the debt could be simply assumed by the new communist regime then garcia would have been decided differently one more question i have on garcia yeah how would this decision be proper under the law if the coronet of minimum had required a showing or was there in fact a showing that citi corp and chase had in fact given up the deposits to the vietnamese government in other words the money was either still there in the vault or was outstanding in loans to be it means citizens and entities when the communist government took them over if the if the court below had required that showing or was that showing in fact made would not this ruling be proper garcia does not apply garcia did hold that if a clear and unequivocal repudiation of the debt obligation had occurred in the of that case that would have commenced the limitation period and would that not that showing not in fact be made if in essence citicorp and chase show to the court below that the vietnamese had the money could have made a demand i understand that but i believe that the the premise the logic and the public policy expressed in the garcia case is what should be the guiding principle in this case  could you have made let's assume that we have to apply california law could you not could your clients especially the california residents not have made a demand prior to their immigration to the united states could they have made it the man well they were in a relocation can someplace trying to stay alive so i think as a practical matter they could not have you know in the fact they were in a relocation place because they didn't have the funds to get smuggled out of  communist country as a direct cause and effect relationship remember we're dealing with a respectful reality here a reality of what happened to that country it's the same thing that happened to the country of cuba with the tortola tarion communist regime took interesting questions to be decided should be decided by a decider of fact respectfully our facts which we have alleged people made in the sense of an inquiry as opposed to a outright demand for the fun where's my money look to the vietnamese government for your money and that's the same response that in garcia was found to be lost in is that there's a misleading yes that would have deferred the time period when the demand could sure you know having read it it's our core issue is that statue of limitations and there are all sorts of equities in favor of my clients on the issues of being defrauded in this representative but i'm not concentrating on that i thought in trading on let begins to run in ordinary deposit cases like this one with the closing of the branch this is not a case like garcia which involved dollar deposit the form of a certificate of deposit against the background of a statute in the york which specifically says that a certificate of deposit i collectable until there's a demand here we have ordinary bank deposits made in piasters in the other cases although there's very little alleged in this complain certificate of deposit with allegations in that complaint and the court believing these allegations for purposes of the analysis to be true that there were specific representation and that this certificate of deposit is payable anywhere in the office and by the way the rate was in that case three and a quarter percent another w for their equivalent at the time but you are obligated on earth anywhere where you go i respectfully disagree in just this respect the law in new york is that the parent is libel for the obligation of the branch if the branch breaches the geisha but there's a difference and it's an important difference unlike in garcia there was no representation you can take your bank card and present it to citibank or chase in new york no representation there was no denial was there well there's there's no allegation in the complaint you don't you don't  disagree with the allegation that the branch was part of the corporate structure it was not a separate entity the branch was a separate entity it was a separate corporation or that it was it was an entity whose obligations if not paid could be collected within the statute of limitations period by suing the bank  were your were your two clients not obligated to honor the proof of deposit anywhere in the world they were obligated to to make good in the sense of  suit they would have to pay for the breach that was committed upon the closing of the branch for a period of six years until of course new york law i'm not quite sure i understand your parsing of words if there'd been no takeover and they had taken the proof of the deposit go over to a branch in china or in hong kong they could not have demanded payment then and there that's actually correct they could not have demanded payment there they it had t takeover then these plaintiffs could have gone to their branch and only to their branch and taken after piastres should we not have required or should there not have been required to showing that in fact the money the assets were taken over by the vietnamese government mean for all we know we can assume that you took those deposits and you took them out of the country you converted them into dollars or into chinese or taiwanese currency you made loans so the to enter these where it would be more profitable to make loans well in lee hong kong or japan or or india or someplace else well how did vietnam not only this the complaint alleges nothing of the sort but it alleges that these funds were confiscated by the government so this is had twenty years ago that describe exactly what happened and what they do describe is that the assets of the bank were turned over to for one week it was the banking authority of south vietnamese government which was then replaced by the communist authority approximately a week later we have these new york cases and of course the new york statute that protects the new york and of the east and banks why should we apply  new york law rather than let alone rather than vietnamese certainly taiwanese sounds to me like taiwan has a pretty strong interest in having their law fly to the plaintiffs who who are taiwanese  but why should why does california not have a very strong interest in having california law apply to a majority of plaintiffs who are california residents then who have no competency or ability to make demand on these entities while they are still under the control of the vietnamese government or in refugee camps there are several reasons your honor the first one is one of the cases upon which the plaintiff act different when the person obtains residency after being part of a communist takeover or in a refugee camp there probably well first of all your honor the although there were cuba and we all know what happened when castro took over in cuba this is another situation of a revolutionary government coming into power and under choice of law rules you have to look at the following things first by the way you have a question of whose choice of law rule applies is the federal common law which is what the second circuit and  the first circuit have decided or is that as recently held by the d c circuit the choice of law rules of the form so that's actually it's an interesting question for the circuits never been  we have to look at the comparative thing param analysis so which states interest is more and paired here if if the other state is chosen new york now feels very strongly about this issue to delaware have very strong interest in protecting corporate entities there's an inducement to have them incorporated there headquartered there and that's exactly the sort of interest that the comparative impairment test is designed to vindicate it to the contrary we have plaintiffs some of whom are in california class certified they could be spread all over the world banks have an interest in having one law governing a liability like this not a patchwork piecemeal of many many different laws for the same reason that tie when these law applies to check timing is your honor pointed out because taiwan has a strong interest in regulating the behavior of its bank same for new york and new york law for these banks the second point your honor wholly apart from the statue of limitations which does need to be considered is the fact that we have a specific statute in new york and there's really no argument that the statute doesn't apply and the statute was was designed to address cases in which there isn't a statute of limitations defense and because of the six years after this occurred the banks would have been liable because that statute was not an accidental nine hundred ninety four the statute of limitations is six years from the closing of the branch you moved forward six years one other point your honor with the confiscation of those assets by the communist government and it was much later created and the same law that was cited in the three district court cases below  off comes from from that period of time and it is clear that the closing of the branch begins the cruel of the clan that has been applied in a variety of different contexts ranging from statute of limitations to valuation of the deposit but in banking it's very important to keep the goalposts in the same place because let me just ask you if you were representing the other side and specifically response here maybe these requests were even late but soon they were timely your response here was we don't have your deposit talk to the government of the of the in the allegation is that in essence is a tolling than even an equitable tolling because you say you simply set them down the wrong path the answer to that is that they knew about the breach because they knew that the branches had been closed that was the breach nothing excuses the play of twenty eight years in asking for that money reaches the closing of the branch according to new york law that's correct eight out of the million that's without in the inquiry the closing of the branch and even assuming an obligation of the corporate parent to honor the deposit upon such clothing or upon a demand at least there's a breach of part simply closing the branch that's been the law since nine hundred seventeen your honor and it was reaffirmed three times in the context of the vietnamese cases in the early eighty's by three separate district courts considering the question  n he is not alleged ever to have been either a citizen of california or a resident of california he is not alleged to have ever had any contact whatsoever with the state of california  to do business in taiwan and long after the closure of its office in saigon and other vietnamese city the bottom line with respect to child tongue bank is that either the law of taiwan of flies or the law of vietnam applies and even if for some reason respectfully your honour's decided that california law has some interest in child tongues relationship with a single vietnamese deposit her even then under california is borrowing statute because the stat the statue of limitations has run in the location where the breach occurred which w diddly the location that has the greatest relationship with the parties and the occurrence which was taiwan because of that even under california law the statute of limitations unfortunately has well as any applicable of cruel and tolling doctrines that would apply in taiwan the bottom line is that in taiwan that long as possible statute of limitations would have been fifteen years that statute would have run under taiwan law from the moment in time when demand could have been made for the money and that would have been one nine hundred seventy five as alleged in the complaint fifteen years later would have been one nine hundred ninety so under taiwan law unfortunately the requirements either of federal rule of evidence two or one rule forty four point one even under vietnam should your honors look at the battle of the experts here what you will see is that ms wayne has demonstrated that under the best possible scenario the statute of limitations for these crimes ran in june of one nine hundred ninety four and this is on page five of the declaration of lucy wayne where she discusses the l as possible statute of limitations that could have applied here and concludes that for this type of breach of contract the statute would have been three years from july first one thousand nine hundred one which would have been june thirtieth hundred ninety four finally in closing i want to note that none of the plaintiffs alleged in this complaint are citizens of california some are residents some of their  representatives are residents but none are likely to have been citizens of california and in closing others knew where you were at the time of summary or talk at the time or even or even with respect to today i thought of them or citizens even today i believe of the class of plaintiffs are in fact california citizens residents of the state of california there are some exceptions but you would agree that none worse california citizens of the time these at the time the closure of the bank let's say with one exception  fernandez who was the united states soldier although resident at the time of the country's south vietnam was an american and california citizen at the time that he put all of his deposits his life savings if you will into the bank in saigon sorry for this interruption it's already last point yes the statute says has the claim has the claim the cause of action at the time they are resident in california yes do they have the cause of that if the statute has begun to run do they have to claim prior to the time they become residents of california if they're under a communist regime and or in a refugee camp to start do they under california law until they come to california i think the court justice is quite correct on that if i mean back to forty eight paragraph forty eight we're legit as plaintiffs that the vietnamese branches were confiscated by the conquering governments defendants represented the plaintiffs again quote from paragraph forty eight of complaint and continue to represent the plaintiffs and their deposits were compensated when in truth that was not the case we have never said that her allege that they were confiscated by mistake and i'm sure paragraph fifty one of our complaint states the defendants unjustly blocked accounts refused to return the looted assets enrich themselves with the derivative profits concealed information value and derivative profits of the looted assets from the plaintiffs actions in furtherance of defense fraud included a blocking and confiscating plaintiffs advances accounts in advance of any official compulsion to do so refusal to allow the drawl twice while simultaneously accepting deposits from others which deposits they never intended to return or their continued retention of assets and failing to provide an accounting and restitution to players we have alleged and will prove to a prior fact it permitted to do so that the time that our clients were not being permitted to withdraw their accounts that they were advertising to the soon to be refugees bring your money to our bank we are an international bank and your money will be safe here and literally people were taking money out of vietnamese banks and days of cash and carrying it to chase manhattan bank for the security that they presume came from an international bank paragraphing wait twenty year to do anything about it i don't know i couldn't i could not inform the court other than the lack of the english a lack of knowledge about the american system i could not tell the court i was only involved when i came to see me i would just add a paragraph fifty two as an example of the misrepresentation plaintiffs when shortly before the fall of saigon in through the saigon branch the defendant the chase manhattan bank requested the withdrawal of the funds in one of her accounts the banks refused to allow her to make the withdraw at the very same time the bank was upset because setting deposits which others were making some depositors had come with bags full of cash defended him when i was able that day to obtain a partial withdraw from one account with pleading begging weeping and finally a threat of suicide as to the remaining funds in her first account and as to our second account she was told not w told notwithstanding the imminent fall of the saigon government not to worry that the chase manhattan bank and her money and it was say has her money and it was safe don't you think at a minimum you should have to make a showing at the district court in order to avoid the application of the statue limitation that there is incompetency in some form or fashion at a minimum by virtue of misrepresentation from the banks from the kind they became resident of california until the time when they made the new man that is the planning of the so i'd like to be able to do that if i were permitted to do so yes and i think that we can just just to close that i don't want to  overturned it is good law and it does not say that the closing of the branch begins the running of the statue of limitations unless there is a clear and unequivocal  secondly we have strikingly similar situations we have people who are in the throes of an advancing dictatorship not knowing where they're going to live or die not knowing whether they're going to be able to skate chaos and someone says our branch come our bank is an international record bull bank it's going to be safe no matter what happens don't worry about it we're all over the world and they took that on faith and they put their money on faith and now those banks are back in business with that very same very thank you counsel the case just argued will be submitted for decision and we will now hear argument in united states versus