Insurers allege a Saudi bank 'aided and abetted' in 9/11 attacks
A court has reinstated an insurers’ suit against Al Rajhi Bank stemming from the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed a district court’s decision dismissing a lawsuit filed by dozens of insurance companies against a Saudi bank alleging its “specific intent to further terrorism in the United States” in connection with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States and ruled that the lawsuit may proceed.
The case
Dozens of insurance carriers sued Al Rajhi Bank, a Saudi Arabian bank, asserting that it aided and abetted al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.
The insurers principally alleged that Al Rajhi Bank provided financial services and donations to charities that it knew financially supported al Qaeda and provided financial services to known extremist operatives. They further alleged that Al Rajhi Bank’s provision of financial services was done with the specific intent to further al Qaeda’s terrorism against the United States.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the insurers’ claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied the insurers’ request for jurisdictional discovery.
The insurers appealed, arguing that the district court had jurisdiction over Al Rajhi Bank because of its financial support of al Qaeda, and, in the alternative, because Al Rajhi Bank and al Qaeda had entered into a conspiracy to target U.S. interests.
The Second Circuit’s decision
The Second Circuit reversed.
In its decision, the Second Circuit explained that it has held that “[p]roviding indirect funding to an organization that was openly hostile to the United States” did not constitute “intentional conduct” that was “expressly aimed . . . at residents of the United States.”
Therefore, the circuit court observed, the defendants in those cases were not subject to personal jurisdiction in the United States.
The Second Circuit then found that the inclusion of allegations related to Al Rajhi Bank’s “specific intent to further terrorism in the United States” distinguished the insurers’ case against Al Rajhi Bank from those in which it did not grant personal jurisdiction — and warranted jurisdictional discovery.
The Second Circuit ruled that construing all reasonable inferences in favor of the insurers, the support they alleged, “in conjunction with this specific intent,” was “more direct and one step closer to al Qaeda” when compared to the support it previously had found to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the Second Circuit concluded, given the factual issues that persisted, the jurisdictional discovery was warranted to determine:
- When the alleged support was given to al Qaeda;
- What support was given;
- Whether the support was “earmarked” for use in specific schemes or attacks not directed at the United States; or
- Specifically how Al Rajhi Bank was involved in the process of providing support to al Qaeda.
The case is Underwriting Members of Lloyd’s Syndicate 2 v. Al Rajhi Bank.
This piece first appeared on sister site law.com.
Related: