From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Mar 2, 2011
Case No. CV 96-4849 (ERK) (MDG), (Consolidated with CV 96-5161 and CV 97-461) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. CV 96-4849 (ERK) (MDG), (Consolidated with CV 96-5161 and CV 97-461).

March 2, 2011


MEMORANDUM ORDER


MEMORANDUM ORDER APPROVING SET 14HBJ OF DECISIONS ON APPEAL

This being the fourteenth Set of Appeal Decisions submitted to the Court by Special Master Helen B. Junz.

As provided under the Settlement Agreement, and in accordance with the procedures established in the December 8, 2000 Memorandum Order, in the December 14, 2006 Memorandum Order, and in the Plan of Allocation and Distribution of Settlement Proceeds, Special Master Helen B. Junz is hereby requesting the Court's approval of the 9 Decisions on Appeal listed in Annex A to this Order. At the direction of the Court, Special Master Junz was not involved in the initial review of the CRT's recommendations in connection with the 9 decisions described herein. Accordingly, the Court determined that it was appropriate for her to review these decisions on appeal and to provide her appellate recommendations to the Court.

Under Article 22(2), the Rules further provide that "[a]n Award may be made of the value of an Account in favor of a Claimant if:

a) the Claimant has identified a person with precisely the same name as the Account Owner, or the Claimant has accurately identified a person with substantially the similar name as the Account Owner or a credible pseudonym, and where applicable, has provided a plausible explanation for the difference in names; and
b) the CRT is satisfied that the information provided by the Claimant is consistent with unpublished information in the bank records . . ."

In one of these 9 cases, In re the Account of Mihail Atias, the CRT determined that the name of the Claimed Account Owner did not match to that of the owner of any account in the database available to it. However, new documentation submitted by the Appellant in support of his Appeal indicated that during the relevant period an account had been held in the name of the Appellant with the Société Générale de Surveillance, S.A., Geneva. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the CRT to issue a decision in light of the new evidence.In one of the remaining eight cases the CRT has determined, and the Special Master has confirmed this finding on appeal, that the Claimant was not able to identify his or her relative as the Account Owner or as the Power of Attorney Holder of record. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed.

The remaining seven cases involve Certified Awards. In all these seven cases the issues raised on Appeal were the assertion that the amount of the award was inadequate or that the Appellant was better entitled to the award than the actual recipient of the Award. In all these seven cases, the Special Master has confirmed on appeal that the CRT's award determination was correct. In one case, In re the Accounts of André Gluckstahl and Ludwig Glucksthal, the Appellant, in addition to asserting that the amount of the award to the account of André Gluckstahl was inadequate, asserted that she had never received a decision to the account of Ludwig Glucksthal. In this case, the Special Master confirmed on appeal that the CRT was correct, both in the determination of the amount of the award of the account of André Gluckstahl and in not issuing a separate decision regarding the account of Ludwig Glucksthal. As concerns the latter, the CRT has no bank information on an account held in the name of Ludwig Glucksthal and the information provided by the Appellant related to accounts published and treated under CRT I, for which the CRT has no jurisdiction. Accordingly, this case is affirmed in full.

In view of the above, it is hereby

ORDERED that the 9 Decisions on Appeal listed in Annex A are hereby approved and shall be distributed to the relevant Claimants by the CRT.

It is further ordered that the Special Master shall provide the Court with the name and address of every Claimant receiving a Decision on Appeal, which information shall be filed with the Court under seal.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York January 31, 2011 [Set 14 HBJ] Annex A — UNREDACTED CONFIDENTIAL

Special Master Helen B. Junz hereby certifies as of January 13, 2011 the following decisions on appeal for approval by the Court:

Original Appeal Account Owner's Name and Claim Decision Disposition Number Number in Batch Type of the Appeal

1. 1389 Schwarz, Karl and Olga, 224455 115 Identity Denial Dismissed Award inadequate and non-existence of 2. 1744 Glucksthal, André and Ludwig, 207632 142 account Dismissed 3. 3058 Atias, Mihail et al., 213143 NML 52 No match letter Remanded 4. 3069 Beit von Speyer, Elisabeth, 402250 177 Award inadequate Dismissed 5. 3081 Rozen, Natan, 217462, 218770 178 Lesser entitlement Dismissed Mendelssohn Co., 205199, 501771, 6. 3096 785948 183 Non-entitlement Dismissed Disposition and 7. 3097 Kremer, Salomon, 222869 178 Award inadequate Dismissed 8. 3206 Ullmann, Léopold, 402257 184 Award inadequate Dismissed 9. 3243 Loewenthal, Alfred, 751151 189 Award inadequate Dismissed


Summaries of

In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Mar 2, 2011
Case No. CV 96-4849 (ERK) (MDG), (Consolidated with CV 96-5161 and CV 97-461) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2011)
Case details for

In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: HOLOCAUST VICTIM ASSETS LITIGATION This Document Relates to: All…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Mar 2, 2011

Citations

Case No. CV 96-4849 (ERK) (MDG), (Consolidated with CV 96-5161 and CV 97-461) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2011)