United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HASSAN ALI ABBAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1342

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00229-LKG, Judge Lydia Kay 

Griggsby.

______________________ 

Decided: December 6, 2016

______________________ 

HASSAN ALI ABBAS, Hanover Park, IL, argued pro se. 

ALEXANDER ORLANDO CANIZARES, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. 

Also represented by JAMES R. SWEET, BENJAMIN C. MIZER,

ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges.

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge. 
2 ABBAS v. US

Hassan Ali Abbas appeals the final decision of the 

United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his 

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 

failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted 

pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the 

United States Court of Federal Claims. Because we agree 

with the Court of Federal Claims that Mr. Abbas’s claims 

are time barred, we affirm. 

I 

This case arises from Mr. Abbas’s complaint against 

the United States (“U.S.” or “the Government”) in the 

Court of Federal Claims for an alleged taking of his

property rights in certain pre-World War II German 

bonds. Mr. Abbas alleges that a series of post-World War 

II treaties between the U.S. and Germany pertaining to 

the handling of these bonds effected a regulatory taking

without compensation of his right to enforce the bonds 

against Germany in U.S. courts, in violation of the United 

States Constitutional requirement that “private property 

[shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. Const. amend. V. The Court of Federal Claims

found that Mr. Abbas’s claim was time barred by the 

applicable statute of limitations. We first provide a short 

recitation of the relevant historical background.

After World War I, a number of German banks and 

companies sold bearer bonds that were underwritten and 

payable in the U.S. Abrey v. Reusch, 153 F. Supp. 337, 339 

(S.D.N.Y. 1957).1 Prior to the outbreak of World War II, 

 

1 We are not the first court to deal with these 

bonds. In particular, the Seventh Circuit case Korber v. 

Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 739 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir. 

2014), involves what appear to be the same bonds at issue 

here. Mr. Abbas was counsel to the plaintiffs in Korber, 

and states in his brief that he “acquired his bonds during 
ABBAS v. US 3

many of the bonds were repurchased by the issuers for 

eventual retirement. Id. Those repurchased bonds no 

longer represented obligations. Id. Nevertheless, the 

outbreak of World War II prevented the issuing authorities from presenting the bonds to the American trustees 

or paying agents for cancelation, and thus a large number 

of the repurchased (but not cancelled) bonds were stored 

in Berlin during the war. Id. Following the occupation of 

Berlin by the Soviet Union, a large number of the stored 

bonds found their way into unauthorized hands. Id.2 

 

the Korber case.” Appellant’s Br. at 13. At oral argument, 

Mr. Abbas represented that he had obtained the bonds as 

of 2008 when the complaint in Korber was filed. Oral 

Argument (Oct. 4, 2016) at 02:09–02:58.

Other recent cases dealing with similar German prewar bonds include Fulwood v. Federal Republic of Germany, 734 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2013), World Holdings, LLC v. 

Federal Republic of Germany, 701 F.3d 641 (11th Cir. 

2012), and Mortimer Off Shore Services, Ltd. v. Federal

Republic of Germany, 615 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2010). As the 

court in Korber noted, the plaintiffs in these recent cases 

have been uniformly unsuccessful in asserting their 

claims to payment on the bonds.

2 Mr. Abbas takes issue with the idea that the 

bonds in question were “looted” or “stolen” by the Soviet 

occupation forces after the war. Appellant’s Br. at 8. 

Assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Abbas’s 

implication (i.e., that this story was a fabrication used by 

Germany to shirk its debt obligations) is correct, it does 

not change the outcome of this case. As explained more 

infra, the Court of Federal Claims correctly dismissed Mr. 

Abbas’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

The court properly did not rule on the substantive merits 

of Mr. Abbas’s complaint, including the relevance (if any) 

of the provenance of his bonds.
4 ABBAS v. US

Still, a similarly large number of the bonds remained in 

the hands of legitimate bona fide purchasers. See id. 

After the war, Germany3 was justifiably hesitant to 

pay off bonds that were possibly invalid, despite expressing a willingness to adopt liability for the pre-war debts of 

the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich.4 The situation

also posed a problem for holders of valid bonds, who 

would potentially be forced to share in the limited pool of 

available German assets with holders of invalid bonds. 

See id. Thus, Germany and the U.S. (as well as other 

Allied powers) executed a series of laws and treaties that 

sought to hold Germany responsible for its pre-war bonds 

(and other debts), while at the same time ensuring that 

only holders of valid bonds would be paid. See id. 

The first relevant statute was the Validation Law for 

German Foreign Currency Bonds of 1952. Gesetz zur 

Bereinigung von deutschen Schuldverschreibungen, die 

auf ausländische Währung lauten (Bereinigungsgesetz für 

deutsche Auslandsbonds–AuslWBG) [Validation Law for 

German Foreign Currency Bonds], Aug. 25, 1952, BGBl. I 

at 553 (“Validation Law”). The Validation Law estab-

 

3 We refer here and throughout the remainder of 

the opinion to West Germany (formally, the Federal 

Republic of Germany). East Germany (the German 

Democratic Republic) was not a party to the agreements 

described below until the reunification of Germany in 

1990.

4 Authorities in the U.S. similarly had reservations 

about the bonds. Even after the war was over, as of 1951, 

the Securities and Exchange Commission continued to 

request that brokers and dealers in the U.S. refrain from 

trading in German securities until such time as assurances could be given to investors that the securities constituted “good delivery.” See Trading In German Securities, 

17 C.F.R. § 240 (Jan. 19, 1954).
ABBAS v. US 5

lished procedures under which Germany would assume 

liability for foreign currency bonds where bondholders 

could prove that their bonds were held outside of Germany as of January 1, 1945 (i.e., prior to the Soviet invasion 

of Germany in late January 1945). See Mortimer Off 

Shore Servs., Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Ger., 615 F.3d 97, 

102 (2d Cir. 2010). The law required that the bonds and 

supporting evidence be submitted to an examining authority in Germany (or in the country of bond issue), 

which would conduct an administrative hearing to determine the bonds’ validity. See id. 

The procedures of the Validation Law were incorporated into a subsequent 1953 agreement between the U.S.

and Germany. Validation of German Dollar Bonds, Ger.–

U.S., Feb. 25–Apr. 9, 1954, 5 U.S.T. 1 (“1953 Treaty”). The 

1953 Treaty consisted of two agreements. The first, 

Validation of Dollar Bonds of German Issue, Ger.–U.S., 

Feb. 27, 1953, 4 U.S.T. 797 (“Validation Procedures 

Treaty”), incorporated the Validation Law (and thus 

incorporated the procedures for validating German prewar bonds). The agreement also created the Board for the 

Validation of German Bonds in the United States (the 

“Validation Board”), which served the same function as 

the examining authorities created by the Validation Law 

and was empowered to conduct the bond validation hearings.5 

In the second, Certain Matters Arising from the Validation of German Dollar Bonds, Ger.–U.S., Apr. 1, 1953, 

4 U.S.T. 885 (“Certain Matters Treaty”), the U.S. agreed 

that the German bonds at issue would not be enforceable 

in U.S. courts until they had been validated (i.e., shown to 

have been outside of Germany on January 1, 1945) “either 

by the Board for the Validation of German Bonds in the 

 

5 The U.S.-based Validation Board was dissolved by 

1960. Fulwood, 734 F.3d at 81 n.7.
6 ABBAS v. US

United States established by the [Validation Procedures 

Treaty], or by the authorities competent for that purpose 

in the Federal Republic.” Certain Matters Treaty art. II. 

Contemporaneously, the Allied powers and Germany 

also entered into a separate agreement, German External 

Debts, Feb. 27, 1953, 4 U.S.T. 443, 333 U.N.T.S. 3 (“London Debt Agreement”), which aimed “to remove obstacles 

to normal economic relations” between Germany and 

other nations and to “facilitat[e] a resumption of payments on [Germany’s] external debts.” Mortimer, 615 F.3d 

at 102 (quoting London Debt Agreement at Proclamation). 

The London Debt Agreement constituted a settlement 

offer by Germany for its pre-World War II debt obligations, but did not repeal the validation requirements put 

into place by the Validation Law, stating that “[o]nly such 

creditors shall be entitled to benefit under [the Agreement], as . . . accept the offer, or, in the case of other 

debts, assent to the establishment in accordance with 

such provisions of terms of payment and other conditions 

in respect of such debts.” Id. (quoting London Debt 

Agreement art. 15(1)). In the wake of the London Debt 

Agreement, Germany adopted a policy of paying validated 

bondholders who agreed to settle before paying validated 

bondholders who refused the settlement offer. See World 

Holdings, LLC v. Fed. Republic of Ger., 701 F.3d 641, 646 

(11th Cir. 2012). It appears that Germany finally finished 

paying its obligations under the London Debt Agreement, 

i.e., finished paying settling holders of validated German 

pre-war bonds, on October 3, 2010. Id. at 653.

II

Mr. Abbas filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims on 

March 6, 2015, claiming that the 1953 Treaty caused a 

taking by the U.S. of Mr. Abbas’s property rights in 

certain German pre-war bonds. The Government moved 

to dismiss Mr. Abbas’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for which relief 
ABBAS v. US 7

could be granted. The Court of Federal Claims granted 

the motion and dismissed the complaint. Abbas v. United 

States, 124 Fed. Cl. 46, 56 (2015).

First, the court found that Mr. Abbas’s claims were 

untimely. The court explained that a Fifth Amendment 

takings claim accrues when the taking occurs, and that 

takings alleged to occur via a treaty occur when the U.S. 

enters into the treaty. Id. at 53. Accordingly, the court 

found that the undisputed facts showed that Mr. Abbas’s

claim, i.e., that the 1953 Treaty acted as a taking of his 

property rights in the bonds, accrued on April 1, 1953 

(when the U.S. entered into the treaty). Id. Mr. Abbas did 

not file until 2015, many decades after the accrual of his

claim. The court found that his claim was thus time 

barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501. Id. The Court of Federal 

Claims also rejected Mr. Abbas’s argument that his claim 

accrued on October 3, 2010 when Germany finished 

paying the settling holders of validated bonds. Id. at 54. 

The court found that “the date on which [Mr. Abbas] could 

have filed a claim to enforce the Bonds against Germany 

is simply not relevant to determining when his takings 

claim against the United States accrued.” Id. 

Next, the Court of Federal Claims found that Mr. Abbas lacked standing to bring his claim. The court explained that “only persons with a valid property interest 

at the time of the taking are entitled to compensation.” 

Id. at 55 (quoting CRV Enters., Inc. v. United States, 626 

F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted)). Because Mr. Abbas did not 

own the bonds when the taking occurred, i.e., when the 

U.S. entered into the 1953 Treaty, he lacked standing to 

bring his takings claim. Id. Similarly, the Court of Federal Claims found that Mr. Abbas had also failed to state 

a plausible Fifth Amendment claim because he had no 

cognizable property interest in the bonds at the time of 

the taking. Id.
8 ABBAS v. US

Mr. Abbas timely appealed the final decision of the 

Court of Federal Claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

III

We review de novo the Court of Federal Claims’s determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, its 

dismissal of a complaint on the grounds of standing, and 

its dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 

12(b)(6). Todd Constr., L.P. v. United States, 656 F.3d 

1306, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 

We agree with the Court of Federal Claims that Mr. 

Abbas’s claim is barred by the relevant statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2501, which requires that claims 

brought in the Court of Federal Claims be filed within six 

years of accrual of the cause of action.

It is clear from his briefing to this court and from his 

complaint below that Mr. Abbas’s claim is that the U.S. 

caused a regulatory taking of his right to sue Germany for 

payment of his bonds when the U.S. entered into the 1953 

Treaty. See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. at 9 (“Plaintiff alleged 

causes of action against Germany which have been taken 

by a U.S. treaty. . . . The U.S. terminated Plaintiff’s 

contract rights under the bonds by treaty with Germany”).6 A cause of action for a taking by treaty accrues 

 

6 See also id. at 17 (“Plaintiff, Mr. Abbas, has identified his ‘legal claims’ against Germany which are property interests which were taken by the U.S. government’s 

treaty with Germany.”); id. at 18 (“While it is Germany 

that failed to validate and pay the bonds for no legitimate 

reason even though the criteria for validation are met and 

the bonds are valid and authentic, it is the treaty itself, 

and the terms and effects thereof, that have taken the 

Plaintiff’s claims and right to sue Germany in the U.S.” 

(emphasis added)). 
ABBAS v. US 9

when the treaty in question goes into effect. See Alliance

of Descendants of Tex. Land Grants v. United States, 37 

F.3d 1478, 1481–82 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also Hair v. 

United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 279, 284 (Fed. Cl. 2002) (citing 

Alliance of Descendants of Tex., 37 F.3d at 1482), aff’d 330 

F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2501, Mr. Abbas was required to 

file his complaint within six years of accrual of his claim. 

Because his claim is that the 1953 Treaty was a taking of 

his property, and because the treaty went into effect in 

1953, Mr. Abbas was required to file his takings complaint by 1959. Because he did not do so, his claim is 

barred by the statute of limitations, and the Court of 

Federal Claims correctly found that it lacked jurisdiction 

to hear the claim. See, e.g., Rocky Mountain Helium, LLC 

v. United States, No. 2016-1278, 2016 WL 6775965, at *4 

(Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2016) (“The jurisdiction of the Court of 

Federal Claims is limited by the six-year statute of limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 2501.” (citing John R. Sand & Gravel 

Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, 134 (2008) (holding 

that § 2501 states a jurisdictional limit))).

Mr. Abbas argues that his claim against the U.S. did 

not accrue until October 3, 2010, when Germany finished 

paying settling holders of validated bonds. Because he 

filed his claim within six years of that date, he argues 

that the claim is not time barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2501. As 

the Court of Federal Claims correctly recognized, this 

argument erroneously conflates the takings claim against 

the Government and default claims against Germany. 

The date on which Mr. Abbas could have filed a claim to 

enforce bonds against Germany is not relevant to determining the date when he could have filed a claim against 

the U.S. for interference with his rights to sue Germany. 

The interfering act of the U.S. arose upon execution of the 

1953 Treaty, and it is that act that triggered the running 

of the statute of limitations. Germany’s actions with 

regard to settlement payments made pursuant to the 
10 ABBAS v. US

London Debt Agreement have no bearing on Mr. Abbas’s 

claim against the U.S. Thus, the Court of Federal Claims 

correctly held that “the timing of Germany’s settlement 

payments under the London Debt Agreement cannot 

properly serve as the basis for establishing when plaintiff’s takings claim accrued in this matter.” Abbas, 124 

Fed. Cl. at 54. In short, Germany’s actions do not form a 

basis for a takings claim against the U.S.7

We have considered Mr. Abbas’s other arguments and 

find them to be without merit. We therefore affirm the 

Court of Federal Claims’s decision to dismiss Mr. Abbas’s

claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because his

claim was filed decades after the running of the statute of 

limitation. We do not need to reach, and thus express no 

opinion on, the Court of Federal Claims’s alternative 

findings that Mr. Abbas both lacked standing to assert his 

takings claim and failed to state a takings claim for which 

relief could be granted.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, we affirm the Court of Federal 

Claims’s dismissal of Mr. Abbas’s complaint.

AFFIRMED

 

7 This holding is consistent with our sister circuits 

that have considered the issue. See Fulwood, 734 F.3d at

80-81; World Holdings, 701 F.3d at 653–54; Mortimer, 615 

F.3d at 117.