Source: https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/10/12/bleier-germany/?replytocom=2386
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:36:39+00:00

Document:
The case of the day is Bleier v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland (N.D. Ill. 2011). The case is a putative class action. The plaintiffs claim that they are the holders of pre-WWII German bonds, on which Germany ceased making repayments in 1933. The substantive point in the case was whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction in light of requirements of German law, and of a post-war treaty between the US and Germany, that only bonds that had been “validated” through an administrative procedure prescribed by German law are enforceable. A second substantive question was whether Germany, its ministry of finance, and its central bank were immune from suit under the FSIA. The point relevant to Letters Blogatory was procedural: Germany also raised a defense of insufficient service of process under the FSIA.
The plaintiffs first sought to make service via the German central authority under the Hague Service Convention, but the central authority refused to execute the request under Article 13, which permits a state to refuse to execute a request that “would infringe its sovereignty or security.” Rather than seeking to comply with FSIA, the plaintiffs moved for leave to effect service by email to Germany’s counsel of record. Ordinarily, this is an appropriate tactic, but in the context of FSIA—well, let’s just say that it’s a good thing that when the case was assigned to a new judge, the new judge didn’t just adopt the position of the prior judge, else any victory by the plaintiffs at trial would surely have been reversed on appeal. The FSIA’s four methods of service, attempted in the prescribed order, are mandatory and must be strictly complied with (at least when attempting service on a foreign state rather than an instrumentality of a foreign state).
If the German court has ruled by now on the motion to quash, and has quashed service, Plaintiffs may re-file the motion to serve by an alternate method, § 1608(b)(3)(C), but Plaintiffs must explain specifically how the proposed alternative is “consistent with the law of the place where service is to be made,” id. If the German court has not quashed service, then Plaintiffs may move to deem service effectuated if [the bank] still disputes the effectiveness of service.
The United States has made such a declaration. So under Article 15(2), the US court is free to enter a default judgment. As in Scheck v. Republic of Argentina, another sovereign debt case, the foreign central authority probably would have been better off expressly refusing to execute the request on Article 13 grounds rather than simply refusing to be explicit about its refusal. If Scheck is rightly decided, then there would seem to be no FSIA exception to Article 15(2). See also Box v. Dallas Mexican Consulate General, 2009 WL 3163551, at *6 (N.D. Tex. 2009), judgment set aside on other grounds, 2010 WL 5437246 (N.D.Tex. 2010); Daly v. Llanes, 1999 WL 1067876, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
I’d also direct everyone’s attention to FRCvP 4, 1993 Advisory Committee Notes on subdivision (f), paragraph 5, which interprets Article 15 as authorizing alternative service.
Louis M. Solomon has commented on Sovereign Bonds Exchange LLC v. Federal Republic of Germany, another German pre-war bond case, at his blog. His post focuses on the need to follow the treaty provisions for validation of the bonds originating in what was West Germany, and it follows a Second Circuit decision holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to rule on bonds originating in the former East Germany.
My book History’s Greatest Fraud sheds light on this issue.
If plaintiff is successful in service & the bonds are validated, is Germany obligated to make payments on the bonds? How can this be enforced?
Steve, if I understand your question, you’re asking how one could go about enforcing a judgment against Germany, assuming that the plaintiff ultimately gets a judgment. I’m assuming that this is an academic question and that you’re not looking for legal advice about any particular case.
In general, US judgments for money damages are enforced in the United States by writ of execution, but when the judgment debtor is a foreign sovereign, the FSIA makes foreign sovereign property generally immune from execution, with exceptions. You may want to look at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1609-1611 to get a basic sense of the rule. Of course, one could also seek recognition and enforcement of the US judgment in a foreign court, subject to the foreign country’s laws, but I’m not sure that that was your question.

References: v. 
 § 1608
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.