Get 40% Off
⚠ Earnings Alert! Which stocks are poised to surge?
See the stocks on our ProPicks radar. These strategies gained 19.7% year-to-date.
Unlock full list

U.S. appeals court revives claims in $1.7 billion Iran terrorism lawsuit

Published 11/21/2017, 12:14 PM
Updated 11/21/2017, 12:20 PM
© Reuters. A general view of the Central Bank of Iran building in Tehran

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court in New York on Tuesday revived part of a $1.68 billion lawsuit against Iran's central bank, Bank Markazi, by families of soldiers killed in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon.

By a 3-0 vote, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court judge erred in dismissing claims against Markazi; Banca UBAE SpA, an Italian bank accused of engaging in transactions for Iran; and Clearstream Banking SA, a Luxembourg bank accused of opening accounts for Markazi and UBAE. It upheld the dismissal of claims against JPMorgan Chase & Co (NYSE:JPM).

The plaintiffs sought to recoup bond proceeds allegedly owned by Markazi and held by Clearstream, to partially satisfy $3.8 billion of judgments they had won against Iran after a federal court deemed them victims of state-sponsored terrorism.

They accused the banks of fraudulently processing billions of dollars of bond proceeds owed to Markazi, and targeted cash held in a Clearstream account at JPMorgan in New York.

Iran is one of several countries and organizations ordered by U.S. courts to pay damages to terrorism victims. Such orders are often difficult to enforce.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs and banks did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest had dismissed the case in February 2015. She said she lacked jurisdiction over Markazi assets located abroad, the plaintiffs had released claims against Clearstream and UBAE, and nothing was left in the Clearstream account for JPMorgan to "turn over."

In Tuesday's 72-page decision, Circuit Judge Robert Sack said Forrest reasonably assumed she lacked jurisdiction because the main assets in dispute had been recorded on Clearstream's books in Luxembourg.

But he said recent court rulings interpreting the federal Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act permitted courts in New York to exercise jurisdiction "to recall to New York extraterritorial assets owned by a foreign sovereign."

Sack ordered Forrest to decide whether she has personal jurisdiction over Clearstream, and whether state or federal law prevents the plaintiffs from recovering bond proceeds.

In April 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court said in a separate case that Markazi must pay nearly $2 billion, which had been frozen, to terrorism victims, and Congress had not exceeded its authority by passing a law making it easier to recover damages.

The 1983 attack, in Beirut, killed 241 U.S. service members.

© Reuters. A general view of the Central Bank of Iran building in Tehran

The case is Peterson et al v Islamic Republic of Iran et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 15-0690.

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.