Holocaust Victims of v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that any presently available Hungarian remedy was unreasonably prolonged, and noting that plaintiffs waited until 2010 to file their complaints in the United States.
• finding similar allegations, also by Hungarian Holocaust survivors, that their “expropriated property was retained and that defendants’ retention of the property continues to the present” was “sufficient at the pleading stage” absent factual refutation by the defendants
• defendant bank “issued [$200 million in] bonds denominated and payable in U.S. dollars ... through a U.S. investment bank”
• “[W]e and other circuits treat denials of sovereign immunity defenses as appealable 6 collateral orders.”
• “[D]omestic Hungarian remedies need not be perfectly congruent with those available in the United States to be deemed adequate.”
• “[T]here is no reason for U.S. courts to take up these claims without a persuasive showing that Hungarian law is unresponsive.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).