--- Justin Schwartz <jkschw at hotmail.com> wrote: > No,
the Holocaust reparations were legislative
> determinations. Actual
> lawsuits filed in German courts were thrown out
> precisely because the
> immoral actions of the Nazis violated no law. The
> suits against thew Swissw
> ere another matter: there, there was enforceable
> claims to property rights,
> insurance claims and bank accounts and that sort of
> thing. "Quasi-legal"
> doesn't cut it in courts; Nuremberg was an
> exception. --jks
>
Specifically, the Germans were moved to settle because John Hevesi (New York State Comptroller) threatened to use his influence to block and/or delay the merger of Deutsche Bank and Bankers' Trust in 1999. In fact, the WJC (and therefore, hopefully one day, the Jews) have Hevesi to thank for the Swiss settlement too, which had a lot to do with the merger of UBS and Swiss Banking Corporation. Although the Swiss case did refer to property rights, the real issue at stake was the access of the heirs of Holocaust victims to data which they needed to identify their accounts, but which was held secret under Swiss banking law. If the corporations hadn't had an incentive to deal, they would have been able to delay and prevaricate forever.
I think the implications for the Africans' case are rather gloomy but by no means hopeless.
dd
===== "Imagine the Duchess's feelings You could have pierced her with swords To find her youngest son liked Lenin And sold the Daily Worker near the House of Lords" -- Noel Coward
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie