Survivors' ATA lawsuits allege Saudi and Egyptian banks, investment firms, and a construction company provided material support to al Qaeda after 9/11

778 96. Banks and Banking 226 Allegations in complaint by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, that bank based in Rihadh, Saudi Arabia provided material support to al Qaeda, failed to state cause of action under Anti- terrorism Act (ATA) against bank, absent allegations that bank knew that anything relating to terrorism was occurring through services it provided. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq. 97. Banks and Banking €=226 Allegations in complaints by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, that bank headquartered in Egypt provid- ed financial services and other material support to terrorist organizations including al Qaeda, failed to state cause of action under Antiterrorism Act (ATA) against bank, in that complaints did not include facts to support inference that bank knew or had to know that it was providing mate- rial support to terrorists by providing fi- nancial services to charities or by process- ing wire transfers in Spain. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq. 98. Brokers <-106 War and National Emergency 50 Allegations in complaints by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks failed to state cause of action under Anti- terrorism Act (ATA) against investment company based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia or against Saudi Arabian bank founder, in that majority of allegations regarding in- vestment company actually concerned an- other entity, survivors alleged that compa- ny supported charity but did not allege that company knew that charity was sup- porting terrorism, and allegation that em- ployee of other entity’s subsidiary finan- cially supported two hijackers did not translate into allegation that bank founder provided material support to terrorism or 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES aided and abetted those who provided ma- terial support. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq. 99. Federal Civil Procedure €1269.1 Limited jurisdictional discovery was warranted, on Saudi Arabian bank’s mo- tion to dismiss Antiterrorism Act (ATA) suit by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, as to issue whether bank was immune from suit as instrumentality of Saudi Arabia, and as to whether District Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over bank. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2, 6), 28 U.S.C.A. 100. Federal Civil Procedure 1269.1 Limited jurisdictional discovery was warranted, on Saudi Arabian construction company’s motion to dismiss Antiterrorism Act (ATA) suit by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, as to issue whether company purposefully directed its activities at United States, for purposes of personal jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(@), 28 U.S.C.A. 101. Federal Civil Procedure 1269.1 Limited jurisdictional discovery was warranted, on charitable network’s motion to dismiss Antiterrorism Act (ATA) suit by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, as to which entities were subject to District Court’s personal jurisdiction and whether entities transferred money to terror fronts. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2, 6), 28 U.S.C.A. 102. War and National Emergency <=50 Allegations of complaint filed by sur- vivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks stated cause of action against bank chairman under Antiterrorism Act (ATA), in that allegations and his designation by Department of Treasury as Specially Des- ignated Global Terrorist were sufficient to HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017843