Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;lettow, post: 1727421, member: 6986&quot;]That is not quite what happened.&nbsp; The US court never reached a decision on the merits of the plaintiffs&#039; claims.&nbsp; The case was dismissed because the exclusive jurisdiction for this type of case in the US is the Court of Claims where there was a six year statute of limitations that had been exceeded by the time the plaintiffs filed their suit.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>The plaintiffs tried to argue that the statute of limitations should have been extended on their claims but this was also rejected.&nbsp; The plaintiffs&#039; argument was that the value of the Japanese military peso was depreciated by the counterfeiting done by the US.&nbsp; The information about US counterfeiting was not declassified until the mid-1960s.&nbsp; The plaintiffs argued the SoL should not have begun to run until that information was declassified.&nbsp; The court said the SoL was an absolute bar as there was no provision in the federal law that gave the court jurisdiction over this type of case that would permit the court to extend the SoL. </p><p><br /></p><p>I have always thought it was unfortunate that the case was decided on this ground as a decision on the merits would have been a great read.</p><p><br /></p><p>The treatment of debts incurred during the war in the Philippines is an interesting one that the Philippine court system wrestled with for years.&nbsp; I wrote an article about this in BNR in 2003.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in