FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 9, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 14 35 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 20 19 8- CV-CM A W ORLD HOLDINGS, L LC, a Fl or id a Lim it edLiab il it y Co m pa ny,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, a fo rei gn st at e, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st9, 2 01 0) Befo re CARNES, ANDERSON an d S TAHL, Cir cu itJu dg es . *

Honora ble Norma

n H. Stahl, United States Circuit J udg e for the Fir st Circuit, sit ting by * desig nation.STAHL, Circu itJu dg e: Thi s ca se ari se s fr om

effo rts by Plai nt iff

-Ap pe ll ee, Worl d Ho ld in gs , LLC ("Worl d Ho ld in gs "), t o o bt ai n p aym en t o n c ert ai n b on ds is su edby App el la nt , th e Fed eral Rep ub li c o f Germ an y ("Germ an y "). Germ an y

no w app eal s the de ni al of it s m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . After acare fu l
rev ie w, we affi rm . I. Fa cts an d Ba ck gr ou nd 1

In 19 24 , Germ an y

off eredforsubs cri pt io n i n the Uni te d S ta te s $ 11 0

m il li on of b eare r bo nd s, ca ll ed"Dawes Bo nd s," whi ch were l is te d o n t he New York S to ckExch an ge an d p ay ab le in U.S. go lddo ll ars in New YorkCit y at t he of feri ng fis cal ag en t i n t he Uni te d S ta te s. In 19 30 , Germ an y off eredfor
subs cri pt io n i n t he Uni te d S ta te s $ 98 .25 m il li on of asec on d t y pe of b eare r bo nd , cal le d " You ng Bo nd s." The Yo un g B on ds were al so li st edon th e New York S to ck Exc ha ng e an d p ay ab le in New YorkCit y .

Bo th th e Dawes Bo nd s an d t he You ng Bo nd s wer e b ack edby the ful l fai th an d c red itof Ge rm an y an d re qu ire d Germ an y

to m ai nt ai n s in ki ng fun ds fro m

As when r eviewinga Rule 12(b) (6) motion to dismi ss for fa ilure to state a c laim, we 1 construe the complaint in the light most favor able to the plaintiff a nd acc ept all well-ple d fac ts alleg ed in the complaint as true . Sinaltrainal v. Coca- Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009). 2va rio us rev en ue so ur ces . Accor di ng to W or ldHol di ng s, Germ an y di sc on ti nu ed pa ym en ts to th e si nk in g fu nd s i n J un e 1 93 3. By Jul y 19 34 , Germ an y

ha d c eas ed

m ak in g i nt eres t p aym en ts on bo th th e You ng Bo nd s an d t he Dawes Bo nd s. Tho ug h Germ an y

was i n d efau ltof i ts ob li ga ti on s u nd er t he Bo nd s, the ou tb reak of W or ldW ar II m ad e im

po ss ib le an y

de m an ds forpa ym en t o r pu rs ui t o f rem ed ie s
un de r th e Bo nd s.

Fo ll owi ng th e war, Germ an y affi rm edit s p re-wa r li ab il it ie s, i nc lu di ng th e Dawes an d Yo un g B on ds . A paym en t p la n was ne go ti at edat t he Co nf eren ce
on Germ an Ext ern al Debt s i n Lo nd on , andon Feb ru ary 27 , 19 53 , Germ an y , th e Uni te d S ta te s, an d s ev en te enothe r na ti on s s ig ne d t he Lon do n Deb t Ag reem en t ("LDA") , whi ch res ul te d i n apro po se d s et tl em en t o f m os t o f Germ an y 's p re-

2 W or ldW ar II d eb ts , in cl ud in g the Bo nd s. Als o i n 1 95 3, a s eri es of m eas ur es 3

were en act edrel at in g t o t he Lon do n Deb t Ag reem en t. On e o f th os e m eas ur es is th e Agr eem en t Be twee n t he Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca an d t he Fed eral Rep ub li c o f

Ag ree ment on Ger

man Ext erna l Debts, Fe b. 27, 1953, 4 U.S.T. 443. World Holdings 2 states that the United States a nd Ger many signe d the L DA alongwith fifteen othe r nations, but we take judicial notice of the statement in the L DA' s preamble that sevente en other nations signe d the Agree ment. I d., pmbl., para. 1. Acc ordingto World Holdi ng s, bondholders could de cline to ac cept the of fer of 3 settlement under the L ondon Debt Agree ment. World Holdings admits, and Ge rmany agree s, that World Holdings did not acc ept the ter ms of the L DA. Ac cordingto World Holdi ng s, the L DA does not provide clea r trea tment for non-a cce pting bondholder s like itself.

3Germ an y

Reg ard in g C ert ai n M at te rs Aris in g fr om th e Val id at io n o f Germ an Dol lar Bo nd s (t he "1 95 3 Tre aty "), Ap r. 1, 1 95 3, 4 U.S.T. 885
.

In th e 1 95 3 Tre aty , th e Uni te d S ta te s an d Germ an y "ag reedth atitis in th ei r co m

m on in te res t t o p ro vi de forth e d et erm in at io n o f th e v al id it y of Ge rm an do ll ar b on ds in vi ew of

th e p os si bi li ty tha t a l arg e n um be r of su ch bo nd s m ay

ha ve be en un la wfu ll y

acqui reddu rin g h os ti li ti es in Germ an y or s oo n t he reaf

te r." 4 U.S.T. 88 5, p m

bl ., par a. 2. An ot he r ag reem en t s ig ne d i n c on jun ct io n wi th th e LDA, the Agre em en t Be twee n t he Gov ern m en t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
an d t he Gov ern m en t o f th e Fed eral Rep ub li c o f Germ an y Reg ard in g t he Vali da ti on of Dol la r Bo nd s o f Germ anIss ue (th e "Ag reem en t o n Val id at io n P ro cedur es "), Feb . 27 , 19 53 , 4 U.S.T. 79 7, p ro vi de d t he pro cedur es by whi ch a bo nd ho ld er
m ig htva li da te hi s b on ds . The 1 95 3 Tre at y ex pl ic it ly referen ces th e Agr eem en t o n Vali da ti on Pro cedur es an d p ro vi de s: No bo nd , c o u po n, di vi de nd warra nt , ren ewal cert ifi cat e, subs cri pt io n warra nt or ot he r se co nd ary in st ru m en t
. . . sh al l be en fo rcea b l e u n l e ss an d un ti l it sh al l be va li da te d ei th er by t he Bo ard fo r th e Vali da ti on of G e r man Bo nd s in th e Uni te d St at es es tabl is he d by th e Agr eem en t o n Vali da ti on Pro cedur es , or by th e au th or it ie s co m pe te nt fo r th at pu rp os e in th e Fed eral Rep ub li c. 4 U.S.T. 88 5, ar t. II.

4In ord er fo r a b on dh ol de r to sat is fy th e v al id at io n re qu ire m en t o f th e 19 53 Treat y , he m

us t s ho w, by

refe ren ce t o e vi de nc e, th athi s B on ds were h el d
ou ts id e Germ an y

on Jan ua ry

1, 1 94 5. Acco rd in g t o Worl d Ho ld in gs , th e
va li da ti on requi rem en t ca m e ab ou t due to a "s to le n b on d t he ory ," as de sc rib edin Abr ey v. Re us ch , 15 3 F . Sup p. 3 37 (S.D.N.Y. 19 57 ): Afte r th e Fi rs t W or ld W ar, an d pr in ci pa ll y be twee n 19 24 an d 19 30 , a la rg e nu m

be r of be arer Dol la r Bo nd s were so ld by Germ an en te rp ris es . . . . Pri or to th e ou tb reak of th e Seco nd W or ld W ar, m an y of th es e Dol la r Bo nd s ha d be en rep ur ch as ed an d reac qu ire d by th e is su ers fo r ev en tu al ret ire m en t, an d la te r subm it te d to m eet si nk in g fu nd an d am or ti zat io n req ui rem en ts
. Su ch re a c qu ire d bo nd s were ret ai ne d in Germ an y an d n o l on ge r rep res en te d v al idob li ga ti on s. Dur in g th e Seco nd W or ld W ar, it was im po ss ib le to pr es en t su ch bo nd s to th e Am eri can tru st ees or pa y in g age nt s fo r can cel la ti on . As a co ns eque nc e, la rg e nu m

be rs of th es e un can cel le d be arer Dol la r Bo nd s, in ne go ti ab le form , were h el d i n t he vaul ts of Ge rm an ba nk s. Afte r the su rren de r of Germ an y , Ru ss ia n oc cupa ti on fo rces se iz ed th e un can cel le d, n e g o ti ab le Dol la r Bo nd s whi ch th ey fo un d in th e G e r man b an k va ul ts wit hi n th e area of th ei r co nt ro l. The face am ou nt of su ch bo nd s ha s be en es ti m at ed at $3 50 ,00 0,0 00
. The se lo ot ed bo nd s were re tu rn edto cir cu la ti on by the Ru ss ia ns . At th e sa m e ti m e, ot he r Germ an Dol la r Bo nd s, am ou nt in g to ab ou t $2 50 ,00 0,0 00 , were in th e le gi ti m at e po ss es si on of th ei r bo na fid e pu rch as ers . The re was th us a real po ss ib il it y th at th e ev en tu al ho ld ers of th e lo ot ed bo nd s wou ld sh are th e av ai labl e as se ts (li m it ed av ai labl e fo rei gn ex ch an ge ) of th e Germ an ob li go rs equa ll y wit h th e le gi ti m at e bo nd ho ld ers , a la rg e nu m be r of who m were na ti on al s of th e Uni te d St at es . Mo reo ve r, th e free an d op en tra di ng in th e Uni te d S ta te s o f al l Germ an Dol la r Bo nd s was im pe de d by th e un cert ai nt ie s ari si ng fro m th e si tu at io n d es cri be d abo ve . Id . at 3 39
. 5W or ldHol di ng s cu rren tl y own s o r co nt ro ls a si gn ifi can t n um be r of Dawes an d Yo un g B on ds inth e o rig in al pri nc ip al am ou ntof $ 1,0 00 an d $ 10 0 de no m in at io ns . In Dec em be r 20 07 , W or ldHol di ng s d em an de d p aym en t o f it s Bo nd s i n alet te r se ntto Ang el a Me rk el , Cha nc el lo r of Germ an y , andsev eral

m in is te rs of Ge rm an y ; Germ an y di d n otres po nd

. Germ an y ha s m ai nt ai ne d t ha t t he Bo nd s m us t b e su bm it te d fo r
va li da ti on be fo re t he y

can be pa id . W or ldHol di ng s s ta te s t ha t n o Val id at io n Bo ardis curren tl y

in ex is te nc e. W or ldHol di ng s fu rth er cl ai m s tha t i t i s n ot

4

subjec t t o the va li da ti on requi rem en t. 5

W or ldHol di ng s fi le d t hi s ac ti on on Jan ua ry 23 , 20 08 . In i ts Am en de d C om

pl ai nt , W or ldHol di ng s ch arg es Germ an y wit h b reac h o f co nt ract ba se d o n Germ an y 's a ll eg edde fau ltof i ts ob li ga ti on to pa y th e o ut st an di ng pr in ci pa l an d a ccru edin te res t o n Worl d Ho ld in gs ' Dawes an d Yo un g B on ds

.

Germ an y m ov edto di sm is s fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on on th e g ro un d t ha t Worl d Ho ld in gs ' fai lu re t o re gi st er i ts bo nd s an d s ub m itth em for
va li da ti on is fat al to it s cl ai m s. Sp eci fic al ly, Germ an y arg ue d t ha t t he 19 53 Treat y
Ger many , for its part, maintains that such a n authority

(the " Ex amining Authority ") has 4 exis ted in Ger

many without interruption since 1952 and that World Holdi ng s has not contac ted the Examini ngAuthority

with any reque st to validate its bonds. World Holdings has a

rgued below that those who did not acc ept the ter ms of the L DA 5 need not va lidate their bonds. 6pr ecl ud edan en fo rcem en t ac ti on in Uni te d S ta te s co ur ts on bo nd s t ha t h av e n ot

be en va li da te d.

The di st ric t co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io n, fi nd in g tha t i t h adsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er t he act io n u nd er t he co m m erci al -act iv it y

ex cep ti on to th e Fo rei gn So ve rei gn Im

m un it ie s Act("FS IA" o r th e "Act "), 2 8 U.S.C. § 16 02 , et s eq . This ap pe al fol lo wed

. 6 II . Anal ys is A. W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co urt's de ci si on to de n y t he m ot io n to di sm is s fo r la ckof s ub

ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . Sin al tra in al , 57 8 F .3dat 1 26 0. B. The FSIA, en act edin 19 76 , y ears aft er t he 19 53 Treat y , "es tabl is he s a
co m pr eh en si ve fram ewo rkforde te rm in in g wh et he r a co urt i n t hi s co un try, sta te or fed eral , m ay

ex erci se juri sd ic ti on ov er a fo rei gn st at e." Re pu bl ic of Arg en ti nav. W el to ve r, In c., 50 4 U.S. 6 07 , 61 0 (1 99 2) . Und er t he Act, a fo rei gn st at e "s ha ll be

We have jurisdiction to hear the appe al. " It is well-settled that a c ourt of appe als has 6 jurisdiction over interlocutor y order s denying c laims of immunit y under the FSIA." Butler v. Sukhoi C o., 579 F.3d 1307, 1311 ( 11th Cir. 2009) (citingO' Br y an v. Holy

See, 556 F .3d 361, 372 (6th Cir. 2009)). Ge rmany argued below that it is , in effe ct, immune from suit under the FSIA and the 1953 T reaty , as the Ac t is subject to the terms of the 1953 Tr eaty . Thus, we have jurisdiction over Ge rmany' s assertion of sove reign immunit y under the 1953 Trea

ty (pursua nt to the FSIA' s "tre aty

exception") despite the lac k of a f inal judgme nt in this case . I d. 7imm

un e fro m th e juri sd ic ti on of t he co ur ts of t he Uni te d S ta te s an d o f th e St at es "
un le ss on e o f se ve ral st atut or il y de fin edex cep ti on s ap pl ie s. Id . at 6 10 -1 1 (em ph as is in ori gi na l). As th e Supr em e Co urt h as he ld , "th e FSIA [i s] th e so le ba si s fo r ob ta in in g ju ris di ct io n o ve r a fo rei gn st at e in ou r co ur ts ." Arg en ti ne Rep ub li c v . Am erad a Hes s Sh ip pi ng Co rp ., 48 8 U.S. 4 28 , 43 4 (1 98 9)

.

Am on g t he FSIA's ex cep ti on s t o i m m un it y is th e co m

m erci al -act iv it y
ex cep ti on of s ect io n 1 60 5( a)(2 ), whi ch pro vi de s tha t a f or ei gn st at e sh al l n otbe imm un e fro m su itin an y

cas e in whi ch th e act io n is ba se d up on a co m m erci al act iv it y carr ie d on in th e Uni te d St at es by th e fo rei gn st at e; or up on an act pe r f o r m ed in th e Uni te d S t at es in co nn ect io n wit h a co m m erci al act iv it y of th e fo rei gn st at e el se whe re; or up on an act ou ts id e th e te rri to ry of th e Uni te d St at es in co nn ect io n wit h a co m m erci al act iv it y of th e fo rei gn st at e el se whe re an d t ha t ac t caus es a di recteffe ctin th e Uni te d S ta te s. 28 U.S.C. § 1 60 5( a)(2 ). Germ an y co nc ed es th atit s i ss ua nc e an d s al e o f bo nd s i n th e Uni te d S ta te s b rin gs itwit hi n t he co m m erci al -act iv it y

ex cep ti on to th e FSIA's gr an t o f imm

un ity . Des pi te th e ap pl ic at io n o f th is ex cep ti on , Germ an y arg ue s t ha t i t i s
no ne th el es s i m

m un e fro m su it . The FSI A was ad op te d " [s ]ubjec t t o e xi st in g in te rn at io na l ag reem en ts to whi ch th e Uni te d S ta te s [wa s] a pa rty at th e ti m e o f

8[th e FSIA's ] en act m en t." 28 U.S.C. § 1 60 4. The " subjec t t o" cla us e, to whi ch we 7 wil l re fer a s t he "t reat y

ex cep ti on ," "app li es when in te rn at io na l ag reem en ts 'ex pr es sl y co nf li c[t ]' wit h t he imm

un it y pro vi si on s o f th e FSIA." Am erad a Hes s, 48 8 U.S. at44 2 (q uo ti ng H.R. Rep . No. 9 4- 14 87 , at 1 7 (1 97 6) , rep rin te d i n 1 97 6 U.S.C.C.A.N. 66 04 , 66 16 ) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ). If th ere i s an ex pr es s co nf li ct 8 be twee n the FSIA an d s uc h a n a gr eem en t re ga rd in g t he am en ab il it y of a
co nt ract in g s ta te to su itin th e Uni te d S ta te s co ur ts , th e in te rn at io na l ag reem en t pr ev ai ls . See Mo or e v . Uni te d Ki ng do m , 38 4 F .3d10 79 , 10 85 (9t h C ir. 2 00 4) ; s ee al so H.R. Rep . No. 9 4- 14 87 , at 1 7.

The full text of section 1604 provides: 7 Subject to exi sting international ag ree ments to which the United States is a pa rty at the time of e nactment of this Act a for eig n state shall be immune fr om the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this chapter

. 28 U.S.C. § 1604. We need not dec ide whethe r the " subject to" languag e applies only to abrog ate immunity 8 wher e it may

otherwise e x ist under the F SI A, or whe ther a n exis ting inter

national agree ment may alternatively

prese rve a

fore ign sove reign' s immuni ty from the jurisdiction of United States courts whe re the fore ign sove reign' s conduct other wise fa lls under an e x ception to immunity in the FSIA. See World Holding s, L L C v. Fede ral Republic of Ger many , 08-cv- 20198-CMA, Dkt. # 139, at 10 n.11. For

the purposes of

this case, we presume that it may , beca use eve n assuming that the commer cial-a ctivity exception of section 1605 is " subject to" exis ting inter national agree ments, the 1953 Tre aty does not expressly

conflict with the c ommercia l-ac tivity exception, and thus does not pre serve Ger many ' s immuni ty

here

. 9The in te rn at io na l ag reem en t t o wh ic h Germ an y po in ts is th e 1 95 3 Treat y , ado pt edm an y

y ears pri orto th e en act m en t o f th e FSIA. Art ic le II o f th e tre at y st at es : No bo nd , co up on , di vi de nd warra nt , ren ewal cert ifi ca t e , subs cri pt io n warra nt or ot he r se co nd ary in st ru m en t refe rred to in th e fir st se nt en ce of Arti cl e I ab ov e sh al l be en fo rceabl e un le ss an d un ti l it sh al l be va li da te d ei th er by th e Bo ard fo r th e Vali da ti on of Germ an Bo nd s i n t he Uni te d St at es es tabl is he d by th e Agr eem en t on Vali da ti on Pro cedur es , or by th e au th or it ie s co m

pe te ntfor th atpu rp os e in th e Fed eral Rep ub li c. 4 U.S.T. 88 5, ar t. II ( em

ph as is ad de d) . Our t as k i s t o d et erm in e whe th er the 19 53 Treat y ex pr es sl y

co nf li ct s wi th th e imm

un ity pro vi si on s o f th e FSIA, s pe ci fic al ly, th e co m m erci al -act iv it y

ex cep ti on whi chserve s t o abr og at e Germ an y 's i m m un it y . In so do in g, we l oo k t o Am erad a Hes s fo r gu id an ce. We no te at t he
ou ts etth atAm erad a Hes s p res en te d asl ig ht ly diff eren t q ue st io n t ha n thi s ca se . The re, the Co ur t h adfou ndth atno ne of t he ex cep ti on s en um erat edin sec ti on 16 05 ap pl ie d t o abr og at e Arg en ti na 's s ov erei gn im m un ity . Am erad a Hes s, 4 88 U.S. at 43 9. Th us , when co ns id eri ng th e tr eat y ex cep ti on , th e Co ur t was ev al ua ti ng th e pl ai nt iff 's c la im th atth e "s ub

ject t o" lan gu ag e ex te nd edjuri sd ic ti on wher e it ot he rwis e d idno t ex is t. In fin di ng th atitdi d n ot , th e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d t ha t t he tre at ie s at is su e d idno t " crea te pri va te rig ht s o f act io n fo r fo rei gn co rp or at io ns to
reco ve r co m

pe ns at io n fr om

for ei gn st at es in Uni te d S ta te s co ur ts ." Id . at 4 42
.

10Rat he r, th ey "o nl y set for th subs ta nt iv e ru le s o f co nduc t an d s ta te [d ] th at
co m pe ns at io n s ha ll be pa idfor cert ai n wro ng s." Id. In ot he r wor ds , th e tr eat ie s at is su e d idno t ex pr es sl y

co nf li ctwit h t he FSIA b ecau se th ey di d n otsp eakto th e is su e o f so ve rei gn imm

un ity . Here, as th e d is tri ctco ur t fo un d, Art ic le II is si le nton th e que st io n o f imm un it y . Germ an y

wou ldha ve us readArti cl e II t o s ay th at"a p la in ti ff cann ot br in g a n a ct io n i n t he co urts of t he Uni te d S ta te s t o e nf or ce i ts rig ht s u nd er i ts bo nd s u nl es s an d u nt il itha s v al id at edit s b on ds ," b utth atm ean in g i s n otap pa ren t fro m th e la ng ua ge of t he tre at y . Tho ug h Art ic le II s ta te s t ha t n o b on d " sh al l b e 9

en fo rceabl e unl es s an d u nt il itsh al l b e v al id at ed ," th atdo es no t n eces sa ril y m ean th ata pl ai nt iff

m ay no t b rin g aleg al act io n i n t he Uni te d S ta te s co ur ts to see k
en fo rcem en t o f a b on d t ha t h as no t b eenva li da te d. In th e ab se nc e o f su ch an
ex pr es s co nf

li ct , we fin d t ha t t he "t reat y ex cep ti on " d oe s n otap pl y .

Intere stingly , the Second Circuit in a ve ry rec ent opinion rejec ted Ger many ' s arg

ument 9 that the commer cial-a ctivity exception would not abrog ate its immunit y when the pla intiff bondholder ha d failed to c omply with the L DA' s validation proce dures. The court stated: We are unpersua ded that non-c ompliance with the va lidation procedur es undermines the a

pplicability

of the c ommercia l activity exception to the FSIA. The issue of whether

[t he plaintiff] complied with the validation proce dures doe s not touch upon any

of the re quirements of the commerc ial activity exception, which is conc erne d with the conduct of the fore ign state and not the a lleg edly ag g rieve d party . . . . Takingup the validation issue at the jurisdictional stag e would thus be premature. Mortimer Off

Shore Service s, Ltd. v. Fede ral Republic of Ger many , --- F.3d -

--- , 2010 WL 2891069, at *9 (2d Cir. Jul . 26, 2010). 11Germ an y als o p oi nt s u s t o t he Prea m bl e o f th e 1 95 3 Tre at y , whi ch 1 0 st at es , in pa rt: [T ] he Uni te d St at es an d th e Fed eral Rep ub li c ag ree th at fu rth er m eas ures are req ui red to pe rm it de bt or s an d cred it or s to pr oc eed t o th e or de rly se tt le m en t of th e ob l i ga ti on s ari si ng fro m Germ an do ll ar bo nd s with co nf id en ce in th e st ab il it y of th e pr oc edur es reg a r di ng va li da ti on an d wit h as su ran ce t h a t cl ai m s pr ejud ic ia l to su ch se tt le m en t wil l no t be as se rte d o n t he ba si s o f bo nd s wh ic h wer e u nl awfu ll y acqui red

. 4 U.S.T. 88 5, p m

bl ., par a. 5 ( em

ph as is ad de d) . Whi le th is po rti on of t he pre am bl e
am pl ifi es th e la ng ua ge of Art ic le II th at"[n ]o bo nd

. . . sh al l b e en fo rceabl e u nl es s
an d u nt il itsh al l b e v al id at ed ," li ke Arti cl e II, i t d oe s n otsp eci fic al ly addres s t he is su e o f imm

un it y fro m su itin Uni te d S ta te s co ur ts . Fol lo win g t he reas on in g o f Am erad a Hes s, t hi s l an gu ag e is , in effec t, "s ta t[i ng ] th atco m pe ns at io n s ha ll [no t] be pa id " fo r certa in bo nd s. See id ., 48 8 U.S. at44 2. Itis no t ex pl ic it ly exp res si ng
an in te ntto de ny clai m an ts acce ss to Uni te d S ta te s co ur ts to de te rm in e whe th er th ei r bo nd s ar e en fo rceabl e. Agai n, as Am erad a Hes s re qu ire s, u nl es s a t reat y
ex pr es sl y co nf li ct s wi th th e FSIA's imm un it y pro vi si on s, t he FSIA co nt ro ls , and th ere i s n o e xp res s co nf

li cthe re.

The languag e of a

treaty must be rea d in context i n light of the treaty ' s object and 1 0 purpose, se e In re Commissioner' s Subpoenas, 325 F.3d 1287, 1294 ( 11th Cir. 2003) (abr og ated, in part, on other grounds, by Intel Corp. v. Advanc ed Micro D evice s, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 253 (2004)) , and the " context" of a treaty includes its preamble. Ganda ra v. B ennett, 528 F .3d 823, 827 (11th Cir. 2008). 12Bec au se we fin d t ha t t he pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e 1 95 3 Tre at y do es no t
ex pr es sl y co nf li ctwit h t he FSIA, we d o n ot , andne edno t, co ns id er t he leg is la ti ve hi st ory off eredby G erm an y

in supp or t o f it s p os it io n. 1 1 II I. Co ncl us io n As we fi ndth atth e tr eat y ex cep ti on do es no t ap pl y , andth e p art ie s ha ve ag reedth atth e co m m erci al -act iv it y

ex cep ti on do es ap pl y , we fin d tha t

We note that the leg islative history that Ger many cites is taken f

rom a " Messag e fr om 1 1 the President of the United States Tra nsmitt ing" the L DA and the 1953 Treaty , amongothers, for ratifica tion to the Senate (" Messag e" ). The por tion of the Messag e cited by Ger many is contained in " Enclosure 7(d)" (" Summary of Va lidation L aw a

nd Implementing A g ree ments") , appende d to a letter f

rom Secre tary

of State John Foster Dulles to President Eisenhowe r discussing the agree ments submitt ed for ratification. Germany

has ar gued that the Me ssag e ref lects the State De partment' s (and Executive B ranc h' s) interpre tation of the 1953 Tre aty , and as such is entitled to "great weig ht." See Sanchez-L lamas v. Ore g on, 548 U.S. 331, 355 (2006) (quotingKolovrat v. Or eg on, 366 U.S. 187, 194 (1961)). B ut the Supreme Court has ne ver instructed that a c ourt g ive " g reat weig ht" to the State De partment' s or Executive' s interpre tation when the c ourt' s singular

task is to determine whe ther a treaty expressly conflicts with the F SI A. And as we can c onclude f rom the plain lang

uag e of the 1953 Treaty , rea d in context, t hat there is no express conflict, we need not r esort to extraneous sourc es. See I n re: Commissioner' s Subpoenas, 325 F .3d at 1294 (Only "if the treaty textis ambiguous whe n rea d in context i n light of its object and pur

pose, then e x trane ous source s may be consulted to e lucidate the pa rties' intent from the ambiguous tex t.") (citingChan v. Kore an Air L ines, Ltd., 490 U.S. 122, 134 (1989))

. Moreove r, eve n if we w ere to consider the Me ssag e in our a naly sis, we find that whe n it is considere d in its entirety , it is i nconclusive a s to the view of the State D epar tment on the rig hts of bondholders who did not acce pt the L DA' s offe r of se ttlement to resort to United States cour ts. See Enc losure 7(a ) (" Summary of Agree ment on Ger

man Ext erna l Debts and Its Annexes"), at 204. Thus, the Messag e does not a lter our c onclusion that the 1953 Tre aty does not expressly conflict with the immunity provisions of the FSIA. Cf. Sumitom o Shoji America, Inc. v. Avag liano, 457 U.S. 176, 184-85 n.10 (1982) ( g iving " g reat weight" to the position of the State Depa rtment afte r notingthat "[h]owever a mbiguous the State D epar tment positi on may

have been pr eviously ," the Depa rtment' s curr ent interpre tation was " beyond dispute" in lig ht of an amicus brief

filed in the ca se by

the United States).

13Germ an y

is no t i m m un e fro m su itan d a ffi rm

th e d is tri ctco ur t's de ni al of Germ an y 's m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . 1 2 W e ad vi se th atth is is no t a d eci si on as t o wh et he r W or ldHol di ng s' bo nd s ar e, in fact , enf

or ceab le . W e h ol d m erel y th atth e d is tri ctco ur t h as th e
au th or it y to de ci de th atis su e. The c ou rt m ay y etde te rm in e th atW or ldHol di ng s' fai lu re t o c om

pl y wit h t he va li da ti on requi rem en t o f Arti cl e II re nd ers it s b on ds
un en fo rceabl e. And , in fact , we exp ectth atth e d is tri ctco ur t wi ll de ci de th e 1 3 is su e o f th e ap pl ic ab il it y

of Art ic le II's va li da ti on requi rem en t t o Worl d Ho ld in gs ' bo nd s at th e ear li es t p os si bl e o pp or tu ni ty.

AFFIRMED.

This result means that we need not c onsider World Holdings' argument that Ger many 1 2 waived its af

firmative de fense of immunity by failingto specially

plead immunity

in its Answer. Alternatively , we do not conside r the a rgument beca

use it was ra ised for the first time on appea l. See Calzadilla v. Ba

nco L atino Interna cional, 413 F .3d 1285, 1287 (11th Cir. 2005). See, e.g ., Mortimer Off

Shore Service s, L td. v. Fede ral Republic of Ger many , No. 05 1 3 Civ. 10669(GEL ), 2007 WL2822214, at *6, *11 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2007) ( aff ' d by --- F.3d -

--- , 2010 WL2891069, at *9 (2d Cir. Jul . 26, 2010)). In Mortimer, the district cour t held that the FSIA' s commerc ial-ac tivity exception applied to abrog ate Ge rmany' s immuni ty , but then held that plaintiff' s bonds were unenfor cea ble bec ause of

a fa ilure to comply

with the bond validation proce dures. 14