GA Home > SFPT 50th Anniversary > An Unjust Treaty

                             THE HOLOCAUST RESTITUTION MOVEMENT IN

                                  COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

 

 

Paper presented at the Association of

Genocide Scholars

Fourth Biennial Conference – June, 2001

Minneapolis, MN 

 

 

Michael J. Bazyler

Professor of Law

Whittier Law School

Costa Mesa, California USA

and

Research Fellow

Holocaust Educational Trust

London, UK

Tel: 714.444.4141 x.216

bazyler@aol.com

 

 

 

I.  INTRODUCTION

 

 

This paper examines the role of law in dealing with genocide and other gross human rights abuses.  The focus is on the use of civil litigation as an instrument for achieving some measure of justice for human rights violations, separately and apart from bringing criminal proceedings against the perpetrators. 

The specific scenario examined is the Holocaust restitution movement in the United States, whose aim is to obtain financial  restitution from European and American corporations[i] for their nefarious activities during World War II.  The paper then  examines other movements for historical wrongs, which arose as a direct result of the successes achieved in the Holocaust restitution arena.  Three such prominent movements are: (1) the lawsuits filed by victims of Japan and Japanese industry for wrongs committed during World War II;  (2)  the emerging call for African-American reparations  stemming from slavery;  and (3)  the recent claims being made by survivors of the Armenian genocide for insurance proceeds paid by their deceased relatives.  All of  these  movements are a direct outgrowth of the successes achieved in the Holocaust restitution arena.       

  The fact that American courts are being used today to deal with wrongs committed during World War II – over one-half century after the events took place – is astounding. In the history of American litigation, a class of cases has never appeared in which so much time had passed between the wrongful act and the filing of a lawsuit.  Most surprisingly, the recent spate of Holocaust restitution  lawsuits, for the most part, have been successful. This is in contrast to Holocaust-era suits filed  between 1945 and 1995, when less than one dozen  lawsuits were filed in American courts seeking compensation for World War II-era wrongs, with most of these being summarily  dismissed.[ii]

              As a result of the U.S.-based litigation, and concomitant political efforts, taken place over the last six years  – an astoundingly short period of time –  pledges to settle Holocaust-era claims now total over $8 billion.  

The Holocaust did not occur in the United States, but in Europe.  Most Holocaust survivors also reside  outside of the United States.  It is the United States legal system, however, that has taken  the lead in delivering some measure of long-overdue justice to aging Holocaust survivors. 

Why the United States?  As with all transnational litigation today, the highly-developed and expansive system of American justice makes the United States the best – and, in most instances, the only – legal forum for the disposition of such claims.  American courts have a long history of recognizing jurisdiction over defendants where courts of other countries would find jurisdiction  lacking.  American-style discovery, mostly  unknown in Europe, allows the plaintiffs" lawyer to develop the case through production of documents requests, requests for admission, and depositions of adverse parties and witnesses during the pre-trial process, rather than having all the evidence available at the outset of the litigation.   Guarantee of  jury trials in civil cases – and a culture where juries are accustomed to granting awards in the millions (or even billions) of dollars[iii], both as compensation and as punitive damages – makes the filing of a Holocaust-era lawsuit in the United States more likely of financial success.  The existence of the concept of a "class action", where representative plaintiffs can file suit not only on their behalf, but also on behalf of all others similarly situated, creates a more efficient system of filing suits and raises the prospect of large awards against the wrongdoers.[iv] 

Moreover,  American attorneys are greater risk-takers than their European counterparts, and, unlike in most other countries, can take a case on a "contingency basis"–where the client does not pay if the case is unsuccessful, but must share a percentage of the award if the case succeeds.  Moreover, in the United States, a losing party, except in unusual cases, does not pay the attorneys'  fees of the successful litigant.  As a result, an American lawyer has less to lose if the case fails, and, therefore, is more likely to file suit.[v] 

.            The recognition of American courts as the most desirable forum for transnational litigation was recognized by the great British  jurist Lord Denning, when he wryly observed in an English court opinion: "As a moth is drawn to light, so is a litigant drawn to the United States.  If he can only get his case into their courts, he stands to win a fortune."[vi] 

 The stark reality, however, is that until recently, a Holocaust-era lawsuit would have been summarily dismissed if brought in the United States.[vii]  What made these lawsuits possible is the development of human rights law by courts in the United States over the last two decades.  An American court today is more likely to allow a human rights case to proceed forward even if (1)

the acts complained of did not occur in the United States and (2) are  brought by a foreign plaintiff.

The recognition of such suits began with the seminal opinion of Filartiga v. Pena[viii],  where the Second Circuit of the Court of Appeals held that the Paraguayan father and sister of a victim of state-sanctioned torture and killing committed in Paraguay can sue the perpetrator, a government official, if the perpetrator is found in the United States.[ix] 

           This decision opened the door to a number of other human rights victims injured abroad also to successfully bring suit in the United States.[x]  In 1992,  Congress confirmed  the right of

victims of foreign torture to sue in American courts by enacting the Torture Victims Protection Act (hereinafter "TVPA"). [xi].

Without the groundwork laid out by Filartiga , the cases  that followed it, and the TVPA, the recently-filed Holocaust-era cases surely would have been summarily dismissed.

 

II.  HOLOCAUST RESTITUTION EFFORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

 

A.   CASES AGAINST EUROPEAN BANKS

1.  Swiss banks litigation


The modern era of Holocaust asset  litigation began in October 1996 with the filing of a class a class action lawsuit against the three largest private Swiss banks – Credit Suisse, Union Bank of Switzerland ( hereinafter "UBS") and Swiss Bank Corporation – in federal district court in Brooklyn, New York.  Thereafter, two other lawsuits were filed  against the same banks , with all three actions  consolidated in April 1997 as In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation, and heard by Judge Edward R. Korman, one of the heroes of this litigation.[xii] 

The consolidated lawsuits made three types of accusations against the Swiss banks:

(1) that the banks failed to return moneys deposited with them by Jews seeking a safe haven for their assets in the face of persecution by the Nazis – since such moneys are alleged to have been lain dormant in Swiss banks for the last half-century, these claims became known as the "dormant account" claims; (2) that the banks traded in assets looted from the Jews by the Nazis – these became known as the "looted assets" claims; and (3) that the banks traded in assets made by slave labor which were then sold, and the sale proceeds  deposited with the banks – these became known as the "slave labor" claims.[xiii]

 The lawsuits alleged that the banks,  for the dormant account claims, set up specious requirements, such as the necessity by heirs to produce death certificates for Holocaust victims, as a reason for failing to return funds deposited with them for safekeeping, and for the latter two categories, accepted deposits from the Nazis knowing that the funds deposited were either looted from Jews or came from sale of goods made by Jewish slave labor.[xiv].         

The Swiss banks, in response to the suits, filed voluminous motions to dismiss, setting out numerous reasons why the lawsuits could not proceed.[xv]  In addition to arguing that American courts lacked jurisdiction over these claims and that the claims were time-barred, the banks contended that they were already dealing with the problem; specifically, by publishing a list of dormant accounts and by  creating the so-called Independent Committee of Eminent Persons ("ICEP"), chaired by Paul Volcker, the former head of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, to both  process claims made against them by Holocaust survivors or heirs  and to reexamine their actions during the war.  According to the banks, "Plaintiffs were not required to come to a court of law to seek redress. . .[S]uperior, cooperative mechanisms are available, and those alternatives become more attractive every day."[xvi]

In June, 1998, while Judge Korman was considering their motions, the banks made, what they called, their first and last offer to settle the claims: $600 million.[xvii] 

In the meantime, a number of political factors came into the picture.  First, the Senate Banking Committee, headed by Senator Alfonse D'Amato, began holding hearings on the issue.

Second, a number of state and local governments threatened to stop doing business with the Swiss banks unless they settled the claims.  Third, the United States government issued a report, written by then-Undersecretary of State (and later Deputy Treasury Secretary and Special Representative of the President and the Secretary of State for Holocaust Issues) Stuart Eizenstat, sharply criticizing the Swiss for their World War II dealings with the Nazis     Finally, UBS, now undergoing a merger with co-defendant Swiss Bank Corporation, was caught attempting to shred World War II-era financial  documents, in contravention of a newly-enacted Swiss law forbidding such actions.[xviii]  

In August, 1998, the banks doubled their offer, and, under Judge Korman"s guidance,

settled the case for $1.25 billion. Rather than a lump-sum payment, the banks agreed  to  pay the $1.25 billion in four installments over three years, with the final payment to be made in November 2000 .

The settlement agreement sets out five classes of claimants eligible to receive payments from the $ 1.25 billion fund:

(1 ) the "Deposited Assets Class," consisting of "Victims or Targets of Nazi Persecution" (hereinafter "VTNP") claimants and their heirs seeking to recover World War II-era assets deposited in a Swiss bank prior to May 9 1945 (the end of World War II in Europe);

(2) the "Looted Assets Class," consisting of VTNP claimants and their heirs seeking to recover compensation for assets belonging to them and stolen by the Nazis, which made their way to the Swiss banks;

(3) "Slave Labor Class I," consisting of VTNP claimants who performed slave labor for companies that deposited assets derived from that slave labor in Switzerland;

(4) "Slave Labor Class II," consisting of individuals who performed slave labor at a facility or business or business concern headquartered, organized, or based in Switzerland; and

(5) the "Refugee Class," consisting of individuals who sought entry into Switzerland to escape the Nazis and were either denied entry, or, after gaining entry, were either sent back or mistreated by the Swiss.

One of the most striking elements about the Swiss settlement is that the class of  recipients  is not limited to Jews.  Rather, it also contemplates that, in addition to Jewish victims, the following four groups persecuted by the Nazis are also VTNPs and, therefore, will receive a part of the $1.25 billion settlement: (1) homosexuals; (2) physically or mentally disabled or handicapped persons; (3) the Romani (Gypsy) peoples; and (4) Jehovah's Witnesses.[xix]   This non-Jewish victim group included in the settlement, however, is small, and excludes the entire category of Slavic peoples–primarily Poles and Russians–forced to work as slave laborers for the Nazis.  These victims of Nazi persecution will not receive anything from the Swiss settlement, but must await recovery from the slave labor settlement  finalized with Germany (see discussion below)..     

In return for $1.25 billion, plaintiffs agreed to drop all lawsuits against the Swiss banks being sued.   In addition, the settlement released not only the defendant banks but also "the government of Switzerland, the Swiss National Bank, all other Swiss banks, and all other members of Swiss industry, except for the three Swiss insurers who are defendants in the [federal class action insurance litigation (see discussion below)]."[xx]   Finally, as a condition of settlement, all sanctions and threats of sanctions against Switzerland and any of its businesses were dropped

In effect, the settlement agreement obtained by the two private Swiss banks insulates the entire nation of Switzerland and all its businesses from any kind of litigation – anywhere in the world – having any connection to World War II. .    

The case  marks a milestone in American litigation as, at that time,  the largest settlement of a human rights case in United States history.  Asked to explain the banks' sudden reversal of  their position, Rabbi Marvin Heir, head of the Los-Angeles based  Simon Wiesenthal Center, commented: "It was for only one reason: they were pressured into it.  Without the pressure, with Sen. D'Amato's banking committee, without the threat of sanctions, the Holocaust survivors would have gotten nothing."[xxi]  The Financial Times came to the same conclusion:

The clearest lesson from the Swiss banks' $1 .25bn settlement

with holocaust survivors is this: threatening to impose sanctions

                       can work.  Every important breakthrough in the negotiations

came soon after threats from US local government officials to

            impose sanctions (banning, for example, Swiss banks from

                        certain kinds of business in New York).  The settlement

                        itself came two weeks before a threat to start the sanctions

                        and  a week after Moody's, the rating agency, published

                        a report saying that UBS, Switzerland's (and Europe's)

                        biggest bank, might lose its triple-A rating if sanctions

                        were imposed.[xxii]

 

In accordance with American federal class action rules, Judge Korman held a hearing in November, 1999 to confirm the fairness of the settlement, and in July, 2000 finalized  it. .  Distribution is set to begin later this year.  . 

The current status of the Swiss banks settlement is available at <www.swissbankclaims.com>.

2.  German and Austrian banks litigation

German and Austrian banks maintained close business relationships with the Nazis, and profited handsomely from such dealings.  Deutsche Bank, Germany's largest bank, financed the building of Auschwitz.[xxiii]  A historical report of Dresdner Bank found that in Nazi-occupied lands the saying went, "Right after the first German tank comes Dr. Rasche from the Dresdner Bank."[xxiv]

In June 1998, three Holocaust survivors, all American citizens, filed a class action lawsuit against the two German banks, charging them with profiteering from the looting of gold and personal property of Jews.  Thereafter, other lawsuits were filed against these two banks and other German and Austrian banks for their World War II-era activities. 

In March 1999, the lawsuits were consolidated as In re Austrian and German Bank Holocaust Litigation in the Southern District of New York before Judge Shirley Wohl Kram[xxv].  That same month, Bank Austria and its recently-purchased subsidiary, Creditanstalt, settled the lawsuits against them for $40 million.  A fairness hearing was held on   November 1999, and Judge Kram approved the settlement in  January 2000.[xxvi]

 As of June, 2001 ,  no moneys have yet been distributed from the settlement.  The current status of the Austrian banks settlement is available at <www.austrianbankclaims.com>.

Litigation against the German banks continued.  However, the "rough justice" settlement reached with the German government and industry in December 1999, and finalized in July, 2000, (see discussion below) also included  the settlement of the claims made against the German banks.

 

3. French banks litigation

After the Nazis conquered France, French banks began to confiscate the accounts of their Jewish depositors in a process known as "Aryanization" of the accounts. 

In late 1997 and early 1998 two class actions were filed against one-half dozen French banks in federal court in New York, followed by another action in California state court in San Francisco.[xxvii]  The defendant French banks  all do business in the United States, and plaintiffs were both American nationals and foreigners.      

The lawsuits also named the British bank, Barclays Bank, and  two U.S. financial institutions, Chase Manhattan Bank and J.P Morgan & Co.  These banks had branches in France during the war, and are alleged also to have participated in the confiscation of the assets of their Jewish depositors. 

In July, 1999, Barclays settled for $3.6 million, to be paid to the families of its Jewish customers in France who lost their assets during the Nazi occupation. 

The other banks declined to settle, and  filed motions to dismiss.  The motions were denied[xxviii], and, as a result, a settlement was achieved in the last days of the Clinton Administration through the efforts of Stuart Eizenstat, appointed by Clinton as special envoy for Holocaust restitution issues. 

The banks agreed to establish two funds to compensate claimants for assets seized by the French banks during the occupation.  One fund, with no limits, will pay claimants who have documentation or some other substantiated proof of wartime assets held in French banks.  The second fund, capped at $22.5 million, will compensate claimants with less proof, known as "soft claims", who will present their case to a commission.   Each of the  soft claims approved by the commission  will be paid at least $1500.       

      

 

 

B.  CASES AGAINST EUROPEAN INSURANCE COMPANIES

In the time before the two world wars,  insurance policies and annuities were popular investment vehicles in Europe.  Jews in pre-war Europe often purchased insurance, and an insurance policy was known as a "poor man"s Swiss bank account."

.         The European insurance company with the most notoriety in the field of Holocaust-era restitution is Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A., the largest insurance company in Italy, and owner of Israell"s largest insurer, Migdal.  Generali, as the company is commonly known, was founded in 1831  by a group of Jewish merchants, and, until recently, its chairman was a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz.  In pre-war Europe, Generali was known as a "Jewish company, whose agents saturated the major Jewish population centers before the war."[xxix]  In a situation akin to the failure by the Swiss banks to return moneys deposited with them prior to the war, Generali, along with other European  insurers,  has been accused of failing to honor policies purchased from them by Holocaust victims in pre-war Europe.[xxx]

The other insurance company with a large stake in the pre-war European market is Allianz of Germany, presently the second largest insurance concern  in the world.  Allianz's CEO, Kurt Schmidt, was Hitler's Minister of Economy.  Allianz also insured a number of concentration camps, including Auschwitz and Dachau.   

       Upon coming to power in Germany, the Nazis' persecution of Jews included confiscation

of insurance policies from its Jewish citizenry.  A particularly poignant example of the theft of insurance proceeds  by the Nazis, and German insurers' collusion in such theft, occurred in the aftermath of Kristalnacht, in November 1938.  Since many of the Jewish merchants, whose shops  and other properties were damaged or looted during the campaign, held casualty insurance to cover such losses, the Nazis ordered the insurance companies to pay all such claims to the state rather than to the injured parties.  In a deal made with the insurers, the companies were allowed to expunge the claims of their  Jewish policyholders by paying only a fraction of the claims'  value to the German state.[xxxi] 

Beginning in 1997, two class action lawsuits were filed against more than one-dozen European insurers in federal court in New York, followed by six individual actions in California state court.  The claims were brought either by Holocaust survivors or heirs, with the insurance companies sued doing business in the United States. 

As with the Swiss bank litigation, political pressure has been an important component in either settlement, or, at the least, in  bringing the European insurers to the bargaining table.

In 1997, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, composed of the insurance regulators in all fifty states, created a working group on Holocaust and insurance issues.  Some of the regulators began holding hearings, inviting the companies to explain their reasons for non-payment of these pre-war policies.  Since insurance companies in America are regulated at the state level, and receive their licenses to operate from the state, the commissioners began threatening to revoke the licenses of the European insurers for failure to honour these claims.

       Prodded by the commissioners from California, New York and Florida, which contain  the largest   concentration of Holocaust survivors in the United States, five of the insurers sued – including Generali and Allianz [xxxii]– formed (and funded) the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims, commonly known as ICHEIC, headed by former U.S. Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger.[xxxiii] 

Following the model of the Swiss banks'  ICEP,  ICHEIC, likewise, is intended  to be a non-adversarial alternative to the American  litigation brought against the insurance companies.   In February 2000, after numerous delays, ICHEIC announced that it would began a two-year claim process to locate and pay unpaid Holocaust-era insurance policies.  That same month, ICHEIC began placing advertisements in newspapers and journals  world-wide soliciting Holocaust survivors and heirs to submit claims. 

Unfortunately, to date ICHEIC has done a poor job.  By May, 2001, it distributed only $3 million to claimants, while spending more than $30 million in expenses.[xxxiv]   Eagleburger's annual salary alone is $350,000.[xxxv]  The individual California lawsuits, five of which have settled,  have yielded higher payments than the amounts distributed through ICHEIC.[xxxvi]  While the settlement terms remain confidential, the New York Times reported that one of the California cases alonesettled for $ 1.25 million.[xxxvii]  

           The current status of the ICHEIC claims settlement process is available at <www..icheic.org>.

        

 

C.  CASES STEMMING FROM THE USE OF GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN SLAVE LABOR 

Between eight and  ten million people were forced to work as laborers in factories

and camps in Germany, Austria  and throughout occupied Europe during World War II.  Approximately  1 1/4   million of these laborers – now elderly -- are alive today. 

The reparations program  to Jewish victims of Nazi persecution promulgated by West Germany (see discussion below) specifically excluded payment for slave labor.  Former German slave laborers found themselves in a "Catch-22" situation: the German government claimed that it was not obligated to make payments to them because the laborers worked during the war for private German firms; German industry, on the other hand, argued that any payments should come from government coffers, since, German firms claimed, they were forced to use the slave laborers to support the Nazi  war effort. [xxxviii]    

In October 1998, the then-newly-elected Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder reversed German government policy by announcing the creation of a fund to compensate the former slave laborers.  By that time, however, American plaintiffs' lawyers, emboldened by their success with the Swiss bank litigation, had already begun filing suits in American courts against various German – and even American – companies on behalf of the slave laborers, living both in the United States and abroad. 

Eventually, close to forty separate lawsuits were filed in various courts throughout the United States against numerous German companies which used slave labor during World War II.

These slave labor lawsuits constituted the largest category of cases filed in the United States stemming from the Holocaust. 

On  September 13, 1999, the claimants suffered a serious setback in the litigation.  That day, two federal judges sitting in New Jersey issued separate opinions dismissing five of the lawsuits.  Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr. dismissed the lawsuit against Ford Motor Company and its German subsidiary Ford Werke, filed by a  Belgian national who was deported by the Nazis from the Soviet Union and forced to work at the Ford Werke plant in Cologne.[xxxix] . Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise dismissed four separate lawsuits against German companies Degussa and Siemens[xl].

Both judges held that the suits were non-justiciable, specifically that they were precluded by the treaties entered into by Germany and the Allied powers after the war. Judge Greenaway also found some claims against Ford to be time-barred. 

The dismissals were appealed, but eventually became moot when German government and industry, in December 1999,  entered into a preliminary settlement with the plaintiffs' lawyers and representatives of Jewish organizations to resolve all slave labor and related claims[xli]  for DM 10 billion (approximately $4.8 billion).  While the total amount may seem significant, it appears that each survivor will receive a lump sum payment of only between $2,500 and $7,500.[xlii]

It took over one and one-half years to finalize the German slave labor settlement. Final resolution was achieved in May, 2001 , when the German parliament gave final approval to a law funding the settlement fund.[xliii]  Distribution of the funds to the aging survivors is set to begin in the latter half of 2001 .    

Under the contemplated scheme for distribution, those forced by the Nazis to work to death – slave laborers, and primarily Jews – who survived the war and are still living will receive payments up to $7,500.  According to some estimates,  approximately 240,000 former slave labor claimants are alive today..[xliv]  Former forced laborers –primarily non-Jews and estimated to number today approximately 1  million  – will be awarded $2,500 each. 

  In return for the settlement, the plaintiffs'  attorneys agreed to drop all the pending slave labor

 suits. To block future litigation, the United States government, as part of the deal, agreed to intervene on behalf of German defendants in any future lawsuit for wartime slave labor  filed in the United States.  As with the Swiss banks'  $1..25 billion settlement, Germany and its entire private  industry, for DM 10 billion,  have bought for themselves complete legal peace from bothersome American litigation.

The Germans have conceded that, after a half-century of failing to recognize the claims of the slave laborers, the fear of American litigation is what finally brought them to the bargaining table.

 Chancellor Schroeder, announcing in February 1999, the establishment of a fund for slave laborers (then set at $1 .7 billion)  explicitly stated that the fund was being established  "to counter lawsuits, particularly class action suits, and to remove the basis of the campaign being led against German industry and our country."[xlv]  German industry, in a website devoted to charting the progress of the settlement fund,  stated: "For the Foundation to be established and for the funds to be made available, it is an indispensable prerequisite that the enterprises have full and lasting legal certainty, in other words, that they are safe from legal action in the future."[xlvi]   To make this point,  Germany delayed finalizing the settlement until all the lawsuits in the United States were dismissed.  This fear of American litigation and Germany's  requirement of "legal peace" added another six months to the settlement process, when one American federal district court judge, contrary to the wishes of the U.S. government, asserted her judicial independence and refused to dismiss the slave labor suits against the German companies until she was satisfied that the settlement was fair.[xlvii]          Following the German precedent, the Austrian government and Austrian industry likewise agreed to compensate its former slave laborers and other victims of its policies.  .

Under a preliminary agreement reached in October, 2000, Austria  pledged $500 million to settle claims for Holocaust-era seizures   On January 17, 2001 , it agreed to add $210 million, and $20 million in interest, for other property claims and unpaid insurance policies.  An additional $ 112 million was pledged for social benefits, such as pensions and $8 million for a land swap – a total package of $500 million. 

Earlier, Austria agreed to compensate former slave and forced laborers, setting aside approximately $410 million, and to supplement those payments with an additional $ 112 million for pension payments to Jewish victims who fled Austria as children.

 

 

III. WORLD WAR II-ERA CLAIMS AGAINST JAPANESE COMPANIES[xlviii]

       The suits for Holocaust restitution have now led  to claims being filed against Japanese corporations for their use of captured soldiers and civilians as  slaves during World War II.[xlix]  Without a doubt, the claims against the Japanese multinationals are a direct result of the earlier litigation brought against their European counterparts.  Aging victims of Japan's wartime activities began filing their lawsuits in American courts only after seeing the successes achieved by their counterparts in the Holocaust litigation.[l]

       Over 36,000 American soldiers became Japanese prisoners of war during World War II.  The Japanese also captured nearly 14, 000 American civilians.  Approximately 25,000 American prisoners were then shipped to Japan and Japan-occupied Asia to work for private Japanese companies.[li] These companies are now some of the largest corporate concerns in the world: Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Nippon Steel, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, and at least forty other Japanese companies[lii]    

       Additionally, the Japanese captured  tens of thousands of British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand soldiers, who also toiled as slave laborers for Japanese industry.. 

       Local Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Philippine civilians also were used as slaves by these companies.[liii] 

       The first World War II-era restitution  lawsuit was filed in  July, 1999, by former POW Ralph Levenberg against Nippon Sharyo Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary.[liv] The suit was filed in federal district court in San Francisco.  Other lawsuits followed  in other jurisdictions.[lv] Eventually, all such litigation gravitated to California, as a result of a state law enacted in July, 1999 permitting an action by a "prisoner-of-war of the Nazi regime, its allies or sympathizers" to "recover compensation for labor performed as a Second World War slave victim. . . . from any entity or successor in interest thereof,  for whom that labor was performed. . . .[lvi]   The California statute extended the limitations period for filing such lawsuits until 2010.[lvii]  

       The statute was passed at the time that the negotiations with  the German companies for compensation for their WWII use of slave labor was stalled, and so its  goal was to allow lawsuits against these German companies to proceed in California.