Opinion ID: 151499
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adenauer Letter and the FRG's SEC Filing

Text: The remaining documents referenced in Mortimer's amended complaint are West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer's letter to the Allied Commission in 1951 opining that West Germany is liable for the pre-war external debt of the German Reich, 2 U.S.T. at 1252, and, the FRG's SEC filing in 1994 stating that the FRG is not only the successor to, but is identical with, the German Reich under principles of international public law, and that holders of the interest coupons or talons. . . can look only to the Federal Republic for payment, SEC Filing at 3. Neither document provides an independent legal basis for holding the FRG liable for the East German Bonds. Mortimer has identified, and we have located, no precedent holding a foreign sovereign state liable based solely on a representation by its head of state or an administrative filing made in the United States on the sovereign's behalf. Moreover, neither document expressly mentions the East German Bonds at issue; instead, each discusses West Germany's affirmative assumption of liability for the German Reich's pre-war external debts issued in what became West Germany. It is at best ambiguous whether such statements were intended to cover the East German Bonds, thereby expanding the FRG's legal obligations, as opposed to discussing then-existing debts and obligations undertaken by West Germany in pre-existing multilateral agreements such as the 1960 Treaty. Chancellor Adenauer's 1951 letter speaks only to West Germany's assumption of the German Reich's debt; it gives no indication that West Germany assumed more than the debt incurred in what became its territory or otherwise obligated itself to honor debt incurred in what became East Germany. Instead, the letter discusses West Germany's debts by reference to its obligation to resume payments on the German external debt. 2 U.S.T. at 1253. Moreover, Mortimer has never explained how West Germany might have assumed liability for the East German Bonds or would have had any motivation to do so prior to the 1951 letter, such as by way of a preexisting multilateral agreement. The SEC filing cited by Mortimer provides that the FRG is liable for  certain bonds issued between 1924 and 1930 by the German Reich and the [s]tate of Prussia, and subsequently references interest payments that the present-day FRG  obligated itself to pay . . . following the reunification of Germany under the London Debt Accord. SEC Filing at 1 (emphases added). As already explained, because the London Debt Accord does not cover foreign currency bonds issued in the territory of East Germany, the SEC filing logically refers only to bonds issued in what became West German territory, bonds for which West Germany and thus the FRG repeatedly and affirmatively assumed liability, beginning with the Validation Law and 1953 Treaty. Accordingly, we conclude that neither letter expands the FRG's liability to encompass obligations for the East German Bonds. After considering and rejecting all the documents identified by Mortimer's proposed amended complaint as potential bases for holding the present-day FRG liable for the East German Bonds as incapable of advancing Mortimer's claim for compensation, we are left with mere conclusory statements, Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949, in Mortimer's original complaint. These contentions fail to show anything more than a sheer possibility, id., that the FRG assumed liability under the East German Bonds. We thus agree with the district court that leave to amend would be futile because Mortimer's proposed amended complaint did not cure the original complaint's deficiencies. See Acito, 47 F.3d at 55. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing Mortimer's claim to enforce the East German Bonds, but we do so on the alternative ground that Mortimer has failed to make the threshold showing necessary to invoke the commercial activity exception to the FSIA, and therefore subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Insofar as Mortimer has moved for leave to amend the judgment and to amend the complaint with respect to the East German Bonds, we affirm the district court's denial of that motion.