US Supreme Court gives pharma companies a chance to thwart terrorism-funding lawsuit
By Mike Scarcella
WASHINGTON, June 24 (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court gave boost on Monday to a challenge by 21 pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies led by AstraZeneca AZN.L to a lawsuit accusing them of illegally helping to fund terrorism that killed or injured hundreds of American troops and civilians in Iraq.
The justices threw out a lower court's ruling that revived a lawsuit brought by the military personnel and civilians who said they were harmed between 2005 and 2011 in the Iraq war. The justices asked the lower court to reconsider the case.
Hundreds of American service members and civilians, and their families, sued the defendant companies, part of five corporate families - AstraZeneca AZN.L, Pfizer PFE.N, GE Healthcare USA, Johnson & Johnson JNJ.N and F. Hoffmann-La Roche.
The plaintiffs accused major U.S. and European pharmaceutical and device makers of providing corrupt payments to the Hezbollah-sponsored militia group Jaysh al-Mahdi in order to obtain medical supply contracts from Iraq's health ministry. The plaintiffs alleged the militia group controlled the health ministry.
The lawsuit, brought in 2017 in federal court in Washington, seeks unspecified damages under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a federal law that allows Americans to pursue claims related to "an act of international terrorism."
A federal trial judge in 2020 dismissed the lawsuit, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2022 overturned that decision and let the case move ahead.
The companies have denied wrongdoing and said they "are not responsible in any way for the tragic events that were caused and carried out by Iraqi militia groups."
The companies said in a filing to the justices that a 2023 Supreme Court ruling shielding social media platform Twitter, now called X, from liability under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act should bar the claims in this case.
In the Twitter case, the Supreme Court determining that aiding-and-abetting claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act require showing that a defendant "consciously and culpably" participated in a terror act to help it succeed.
The plaintiffs countered in a filing that those who sued Twitter had sought to hold that company liable for "mere inaction" - the alleged failure to exclude a terrorism group from the platform.
The pharmaceutical and device makers' "knowing bribes to terrorists were far more culpable," the plaintiffs said.
Reporting by Mike Scarcella; Editing by Will Dunham
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.
