Holocaust Victim Assests Litigation

Filing 15

ORDER terminating appeals in In re the Assets of Siegfried Budge. Ordered by Judge Edward R. Korman on 2/14/2013. (Casteel, Heather)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------- X
:
IN RE: HOLOCAUST VICTIM ASSETS
:
LITIGATION
:
:
----------------------------------------------------------- :
:
This Document Relates to: All Cases
:
:
:
:
----------------------------------------------------------- X

Case No. 12-5798 (ERK)(JO)
(Consolidated with CV 96-4849,
CV 96-5161 and CV 97-461)

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MEMORANDUM & ORDER TERMINATING APPEALS IN IN RE THE ASSETS OF
SIEGFRIED BUDGE

KORMAN, J.:
As provided under the Settlement Agreement, and in accordance with the procedures
established in the December 8, 2000 Memorandum & Order and in the Plan of Allocation and
Distribution of Settlement Proceeds, claimants appeal from the CRT's Certified Award and
Award Denial of Claims (the “CRT Decision”) in connection with the decision issued in In re the
Assets of Siegfried Budge. The facts surrounding the claims are set forth in the CRT Decision.
The claimants, Hans Kahn, Wolf Kahn, Ruth Kahn, and the Estate of Eva Ekvall (née
Kahn) (hereinafter the “Kahn Claimants”) are grandchildren of Siegfried Budge, a distributee
under the will of Emma Budge. The Kahn Claimants, on appeal, challenge various aspects of the
CRT Decision. They have made three main arguments.
First, claimants contend that the CRT did not properly calculate the value of assets that
originated from the Swiss-held assets of the Estate of Emma Budge, and which were restituted

1

after the War to the heirs of Siegfried Budge. The CRT Decision valued the restitution amount
in Reichsmarks, calculated the corresponding value in Swiss Francs, and deducted that amount
from the 1945 value of the award amount. The Claimants argued that the restitution deduction
should have been based upon the currency used and received after the War, deutschmarks, which
would have resulted in less of a deduction on the basis of restitution received. I have consulted
with Special Masters Junz and Bradfield and have concluded that the claimants’ argument is
correct. The CRT Decision awarded SF 1,354,962.21 ($1,119,803.48 at the SF 1.21 exchange
rate in effect for CRT awards). Upon recalculating the restitution deduction, the amount of the
award is increased by SF 833,354.25 ($688,722.52) to SF 2,188,316.46 ($1,808,526).
Second, claimants challenge the CRT’s calculation of the estate tax payments made by
the Budge estate to the Nazi authorities. While indicating that the deduction of estate taxes was
appropriate, claimants contended that the taxes should have been calculated only in Reichsmarks,
whereas the CRT Decision apportioned the payments among Reichsmarks and Swiss francs in
proportion to their relative contributions to the total estate subject to tax. I note that deductions
from awards are appropriate when the account owner (or his or her heirs) actually received
amounts by way of direct payment of the account owner’s deposit, or from subsequent
restitution. Here, it is clear that the Nazi regime took the Swiss francs and credited the estate
with Reichsmarks, and the estate used the Reichsmarks to pay the estate taxes. If a deduction
was to be made from the award, it also should have been based in Reichsmarks.
No such deduction is warranted here. An estate tax is the charge that a government
imposes as a transaction tax allowing the transfer of assets from one generation to the next. In
this case, however, the estate tax was not imposed as a transaction tax on transfer of assets from
one generation to the next, but, rather, was imposed on the forced and coerced transfer of assets

2

from one generation to the confiscating government. Under these circumstances, there is no
issue as to the currency to be used for calculating the deduction, as there should have been no
deduction.

By eliminating the estate tax deduction, the amount of the award increases by

another SF 2,971,372.79 ($2,455,679.99), from SF 2,188,316.46 ($1,808,526) (an amount which
includes the restitution adjustment described above), to SF 5,159,689.25 ($4,264,205.99).
The above two adjustments affect only the assets awarded to the claimants based upon
their status as grandchildren of Emma Budge’s heir, Siegfried Budge.
Claimants have proffered a third challenge to the CRT Decision. They contend that they
are entitled not only to the assets of Siegfried Budge, but also to those owned by certain other
heirs of Emma Budge, notwithstanding that under Emma Budge’s will, Siegfried Budge was
allocated only 11% of Emma Budge’s estate. The CRT Decision describes the various bases for
denying this portion of the claim, including the fact that many of Emma Budge’s heirs other than
Siegfried lived outside the Reich and so received their assets upon distribution of the estate; that
many if not all of the other heirs received restitution after the War (at an amount that, I am
advised, might have been greater than the amount the CRT would have calculated had it
determined that an award of such assets was appropriate); that the terms of the will provided that
Siegfried Budge (and thus his heirs) receive only 11% of Emma Budge’s estate, and nothing
further; and that no heirs other than the Kahn Claimants have filed claims that would be
considered timely under the Court’s rules pertaining to the CRT process. 1

1

As described in the CRT Decision, the deadline for filing claims with the CRT, originally set for
August 31, 2001, was extended several times through December 31, 2004. Even after that date, and
through December 31, 2008, the CRT continued to accept certain claims for accounts not previously
awarded where the claimants were closely related to the account owner in question and showed cause for
filing a late claim. Beginning in 2009, in the interest of winding down the complex and costly match
review and claims analysis processes, claimants were advised that no additional claims could be filed.
See, e.g., Memorandum & Order Approving Set 192: 11 Awards, 4 Award Amendments, and 1 Corrected
Award Certified by the Claims Resolution Tribunal Pursuant to Article 31(2) of the Rules Governing the

3

After reviewing the claimants’ written submissions, I heard oral argument. During the
argument, counsel for the claimants and lead counsel for the beneficiaries of the Settlement Fund
engaged in an off-the-record discussion about a possible agreed resolution of the issues presented
in the appeal. Ultimately, the Kahn Claimants agreed to accept an Award of US $4,600,000 (the
“Award”) (an amount $335,794.01 greater than the $4,264,205.99 sum to which the Kahn
Claimants would be entitled based upon recalculation of the restitution and tax adjustments noted
above). 2
After reviewing the entire record, I concluded that there was sufficient merit to the claims
that justified an Award in this range, particularly since two of the three main arguments
presented by the Kahn Claimants were compelling. As to the third argument, while I do not find
it persuasive, it is not frivolous.
Consequently, I approved the Stipulation of Settlement on February 14, 2013. This
settlement concludes the CRT process; frees significant sums for immediate distribution to other
class members; and avoids unnecessary additional expense and protracted delay in distributing
the remaining settlement fund assets to class members.
Counsel for the Kahn Claimants, Melvyn Urbach, represents to the Court that the Kahn
Claimants have carefully considered the Award and have been advised by counsel in doing so,
Claims Resolution Process and Authorizing Payment from the Settlement Fund, December 21, 2009, at 34 (describing one award in Set 192 “based on a claim that was received past the claim filing deadline,”
and noting that the “Court in its discretion has decided to accept certain claims received past the claim
filing deadline but prior to 1 January 2009, namely those where a set of exceptional circumstances is
demonstrated” such as where “(1) the claimant has proven with certainty that the account owner is his/her
relative or that he/she is otherwise entitled to the account; (2) the account has not previously been
awarded to another claimant; (3) the claimant is disabled or of advanced age; and (4) there are no other
timely claims to the account filed by those with an equal or closer degree of relationship to the account
owner”) (emphasis added). In the instant case, the Kahn Claimants requested that their claims be
considered subsequent to the filing deadlines, but prior to December 31, 2008. No other heirs of Emma
Budge had come forward as of that date.
2

The $335,794.01 is a fraction of the sum to which claimants contend they are entitled as alleged
heirs to the estate of Emma Budge and her distributees.

4

and have determined that acceptance of the Award in full and fair satisfaction of their claims is
in their best interest.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that in accordance with the terms and conditions of
the Stipulation of Settlement, this appeal shall be terminated on consent, and the Kahn Claimants
withdraw all claims on behalf of other beneficiaries of the estate of Emma Budge. Moreover,
with the exception of claims to the assets of Siegfried Budge, which are resolved by the CRT
Decision and by the Award of $4,600,000 and this Order, all claims on the Settlement Fund
based upon assets held by Emma Budge and all of her heirs including but not limited to Gertrud
Lascar; Walter Lascar; Marie Lascar; Marie Adler; Rudolf Ganz; Erich Ganz; Martha Ganz;
Frieda Feisenberger; Jenny Reichenbach; Ludwig Bernstein; Herbert Kronheimer; Albert
Rothbart; the Henry & Emma Budge Foundation, Hamburg; the Emma Budge Foundation,
Hamburg; the Henry & Emma Budge Foundation, Frankfurt; and the Charitable Organizations of
New York City, are rejected for the reasons set forth in the CRT Decision.
It is further ORDERED that, except to the extent that the decision of the CRT has been
modified in this Order, the decision of the CRT is affirmed.
It is further ORDERED that for the payment of this Stipulation of Settlement certified
and approved by the Court, the Signatories of the Settlement Fund are hereby ordered to transfer
the sum of US $4,600,000.00 from the Settlement Fund to the Swiss Banks Settlement-Dormant
Accounts-Payment Account. The proceeds of this Award are to be sent by wire transfer for
distribution to the trust account of the attorney for Kahn Claimants, Melvyn Urbach, in the
manner set forth in the accompanying Release of Claims executed by each of the Kahn
Claimants: Hans A. Kahn, Wolf Kahn, Victoria Webb, Ruth Kahn, and Christine Sohl. Mr.
Urbach shall arrange for the transfer to each Kahn Claimant of his or her share of the $4,600,000

5

Award, and shall provide the Court with documentation demonstrating that each of the Kahn
Claimants did in fact receive his or her respective share of the $4,600,000 Award.

Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
February 14, 2013

SO ORDERED:

Edward R. Korman
Edward R. Korman
United States District Judge

6