Beirut bombing victims' $1.68 billion Iran judgment overturned by US appeals court
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK, Nov 13 (Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday threw out a $1.68 billion judgment against Iran's central bank that had been won by family members of troops killed and injured in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said a lower court judge should have addressed questions of state law before ruling against Bank Markazi and Luxembourg intermediary Clearstream Banking, a unit of Deutsche Boerse DB1Gn.DE.
In a 3-0 decision, the panel also rejected a claim that a 2019 federal law designed to make it easier to seize Iranian assets held outside the United States waived Bank Markazi's sovereign immunity.
That law "neither abrogates Bank Markazi's jurisdictional immunity nor provides an independent grant of subject matter jurisdiction," Circuit Judge Robert Sack wrote.
The court returned the case to U.S. District Loretta Preska in Manhattan to address state law questions in the 11-year-old case, and whether the case can proceed at all in Bank Markazi's absence.
Bombing victims sought to hold Iran liable for providing material support for the Oct. 23, 1983, suicide attack that killed 241 U.S. service members, by seizing bond proceeds held by Clearstream in a blocked account on Bank Markazi's behalf.
Bank Markazi claimed immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally shields foreign governments from liability in U.S. courts.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Bank Markazi's and Clearstream's lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests.
Iran, other U.S.-designated sponsors of terrorism, and banks accused of providing services to terrorists face thousands of claims in U.S. courts by victims and their families. It is often difficult for these claimants to collect judgments.
In the Bank Markazi case, the plaintiffs sued in 2013 to partially satisfy a $2.65 billion default judgment they had won against Iran in 2007.
Another judge dismissed the case in 2015, but the 2nd Circuit revived it in 2017.
Then in 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a fresh review in light of the 2019 law, which then-President Donald Trump signed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.
The plaintiffs have said they hold more than $4 billion of judgments against Iran and have been unable to collect for decades.
The case is Peterson et al v. Bank Markazi et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 15-690.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by Jonathan Oatis
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
