US court rules in favor of Russia in “Schneerson library” case

Kommersant. Верховный суд США отказался пересматривать решение об отказе по иску движения «Агудас Хасидей Хабад» (Хабад) к России о передаче...

Russian Federation’s Sovereign Immunity Withstands Challenge in Chabad v. Russian Federation Before the U.S. Supreme Court Concluding Long-Running U.S. Proceedings

Marks & Sokolov, counsel for the Russian Federation and related government entities in Agudas Chasidei Chabad  v. Russian Federation, is pleased...

RIA NEWS: “Documents on hand”: the US submitted an unexpected claims against Russia

Крауялис: в США вспомнили про царские долги неслучайно МОСКВА, 22 янв — РИА Новости, Наталья Дембинская. Американский инвестфонд Noble Capital решил...

Sergey Sokolov Comments on Alleged Russian Empire–Era Sovereign Debt Claims to RBC

RBC. Россия никогда не признавала ответственность за царские облигации 1916 года, которые были отправлены в «мусорную корзину истории», заявил...

Marks & Sokolov, LLC Announces New Representation of the Russian Federation

Marks & Sokolov, LLC is pleased to announce that it has been engaged to represent the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Finance, the Central...

California Court Overrules Dismissal of the Action Filed by Russian Bank

A Russian bank, represented by Marks & Sokolov, filed an action in the Superior Court of California to domesticate a Russian judgment for over...

Marks & Sokolov, LLC Files Motion to Dismiss Baseless Claims in Noble Capital RSD LLC v. The Russian Federation

by | Jan 29, 2026 | M&S Updates

Washington, D.C. — January 28, 2026 — Marks & Sokolov, LLC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint brought against its clients – the Russian Federation and its Ministry of Finance, Central Bank, and National Wealth Fund – in Noble Capital RSD LLC v. The Russian Federation, et al., in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

According to Bruce S. Marks, Managing Director of Marks & Sokolov, “the lawsuit represents an outrageous attempt to attack the Russian Federation based on Tsarist-era debts that were repudiated by the Bolshevik government more than a century ago in 1918. Despite demands by the Russian Federation that the claims be withdrawn, the plaintiff has refused to do so. The Russian Federation intends to vigorously defend against this baseless action, including by seeking sanctions and recovery of its legal fees where appropriate.”

The lawsuit seeks more than $225 billion in purported damages based on a single Russian Imperial bond issued in 1916. U.S. courts have long and consistently held that claims of this nature are barred by sovereign immunity and well-settled principles of U.S. and international law. The action reflects a broader pattern of litigation by the plaintiff aimed at reviving century-old financial instruments and repackaging them as modern, multibillion-dollar claims against foreign sovereigns, including China.

The motion to dismiss explains that the Court lacks both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which bars suits against foreign states absent a narrowly defined statutory exception. No such exception is properly pleaded or applicable here. In addition, identical claims based on the same 1916 bonds were dismissed decades ago in Carl Marks & Co. v. USSR, a decision that remains binding and preclusive.

The Russian Federation further argues that the complaint rests on an unsupported theory of successor-state liability and improperly asks the Court to revisit political and historical determinations arising from the 1917 Russian Revolution and the dissolution of the Soviet Union – issues U.S. courts have consistently found to present non-justiciable political questions. No successor state of the USSR, including the Russian Federation, ever assumed liability for these repudiated Imperial-era debts.

The claims against Russia’s Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank, and National Wealth Fund are likewise deficient, as the complaint fails to allege any acts by these entities that could establish jurisdiction or liability.

The filing underscores Marks & Sokolov’s extensive experience at the intersection of sovereign immunity, international law, and cross-border enforcement. The firm regularly represents the Russian Federation, Russian state-owned entities, and private clients in complex, high-stakes matters involving jurisdictional challenges and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards.