Terrorist Attacks On Sept. 11, 2001 v. Al Rajhi Bank

• Citation: 295 F.Supp.3d 416
• Decision Date: 28 March 2018
• Docket Number: 03–MDL–1570 (GBD)
• Parties: IN RE: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 This document relates to: Underwriting Members of Lloyd's Syndicate 2, et al., v. Al Rajhi Bank, el al., No. 16–cv–07853 Aguilar, et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 16–cv–09663 Addesso, et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 16–cv–09937 Aiken, et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 17–cv–00450 Hodges, et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 17–cv–00117 Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., et al. v. Al Rajhi Bank, et al., No. 17–cv–02651 Abarca, et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 17–cv–03887 Arrowood Indemnity Co., et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al, No. 17–cv–03908 Abedhajajreh, et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 17–cv–06123 Muenchener Rueckversicherungs–Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft in Muenchen, et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 17–cv–07914
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

295 F.Supp.3d 416

IN RE: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

This document relates to:

Underwriting Members of Lloyd's Syndicate 2, et al., v. Al Rajhi Bank, el al., No. 16–cv–07853

Aguilar, et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 16–cv–09663

Addesso, et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 16–cv–09937

Aiken, et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 17–cv–00450

Hodges, et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 17–cv–00117

Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., et al. v. Al Rajhi Bank, et al., No. 17–cv–02651

Abarca, et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 17–cv–03887

Arrowood Indemnity Co., et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al, No. 17–cv–03908

Abedhajajreh, et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 17–cv–06123

Muenchener Rueckversicherungs–Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft in Muenchen, et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 17–cv–07914

03–MDL–1570 (GBD)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed March 28, 2018

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

GEORGE B. DANIELS, United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs in this multidistrict litigation seek to hold multiple defendants liable for allegedly financing, sponsoring, conspiring to sponsor, aiding and abetting, or otherwise providing material support to Osama bin Laden and the terrorist organization known as al Qaeda, for the physical destruction, deaths, and injuries suffered as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 (the "9/11 Attacks").¹ Plaintiffs principally allege here that Defendants National Commercial Bank ("NCB"), Al Rajhi Bank ("ARB"), and the Saudi Binladin Group ("SBG") knowingly provided material support to Osama bin Laden and/or al Qaeda and its affiliates in the form of funds and financial services, thereby enabling al Qaeda to successfully carry out the 9/11 Attacks. (See generally First Am. Compl. ("FAC"), Underwriting Members of Lloyd's Syndicate 2, et al. v. Al Rajhi Bank, et al. ("Lloyd's" ) (No. 16–cv–07853), ECF No. 56.)²

Defendants NCB and ARB (the "Bank Defendants"), as well as Defendant SBG (collectively, the "Moving Defendants"), move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See NCB Mot. to Dismiss ("NCB Mot."), ECF No. 3691, at 1; SBG Mot. to Dismiss ("SBG Mot."), ECF No. 3700, at 1; ARB Mot. to Dismiss ("ARB Mot."), ECF No. 3702, at 1–2.) Defendants ARB and SBG move, in the alternative, to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.³ (See SBG Mot. at 1; ARB Mot. at 1–2.) All three Moving Defendants were previously dismissed from this multidistrict litigation, though not all for the same reasons.⁴ See In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 ("Terrorist Attacks VI" ), 840 F.Supp.2d 776, 780–82 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (dismissing claims against SBG for lack of personal jurisdiction), aff'd, 714 F.3d 659 (2d Cir. 2013) ; In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 ("Terrorist Attacks IV" ), 718 F.Supp.2d 456, 478, 487–88 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (dismissing claims against NCB for lack of personal jurisdiction), aff'd , 714 F.3d 659 (2d Cir. 2013) ; In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 ( "Terrorist Attacks I" ), 349 F.Supp.2d 765, 831–33 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (Casey, J.) (dismissing claims against ARB for failure to state a claim), aff'd , 714 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2013).

Plaintiffs claim that since this Court last dismissed the Moving Defendants, two things have happened that support the exercise of jurisdiction where none may have been appropriate before. First, in September 2016, Congress enacted the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act ("JASTA"), Pub. L. No. 114–222, 130 Stat. 852 (2016) (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605B ), which Plaintiffs claim was intended to allow victims of the 9/11 Attacks to hold accountable parties that provided assistance to al Qaeda "wherever acting and wherever they may be found." (Opp'n at 7 (quoting JASTA § 2(b), 130 Stat. at 853).) Second, as part of this multidistrict litigation, Plaintiffs' counsel took the deposition of Zacarias Moussaoui, a federal prisoner and former al Qaeda operative, and the self-described "20th hijacker," who is serving six life sentences for his role in the 9/11 Attacks. (See Moussaoui Dep. Tr., Aff. of Sean P. Carter dated February 3, 2015, Ex. 5, ECF No. 2927–5.) According to Plaintiffs, Moussaoui's testimony establishes new facts showing that the Moving Defendants aided Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda by providing funds and other forms of material support in furtherance of the 9/11 Attacks. (Opp'n at 16, 23–25, 28.) This Court heard oral argument on the Moving Defendants' motions to dismiss on January 18, 2018.

For substantially the same reasons this Court previously dismissed Defendants NCB and SBG from this multidistrict litigation for insufficient contacts with the United States, the Moving Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) are GRANTED.⁵

I. JURISDICTIONAL FACTS

A. The Bank Defendants

Defendant NCB is a Saudi-based financial institution with its principal place of business located in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. (FAC ¶ 68.) Nonetheless, it maintains operations around the world and offers a broad range of financial services, including Sharia-compliant financial products and services, to institutional and individual clients alike. (Id. ) Plaintiffs allege that NCB provided funds and financial services to charities that operated as fundraising front organizations for al Qaeda, including the International Islamic Relief Organization ("IIRO") and the Saudi Joint Relief Committee for Kosovo and Chechnya ("SJRC"). Plaintiffs also allege that NCB was one of al Qaeda's preferred banks and that it frequently funneled contributions from wealthy Saudi businessmen to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. (Id. ¶¶ 201–02, 204, 214–15, 235–41.)

In addition, Plaintiffs allege that Khalid bin Mahfouz, NCB's president and chief executive officer, founded the Muwafaq Foundation ("Muwafaq") in 1991 and provided up to $30 million for its operations. (Id. ¶¶ 194, 206–07.) Plaintiffs allege further that during the 1990s, Muwafaq provided resources to al Qaeda to support its jihad against the United States by, for example, laundering contributions from wealthy sympathizers and funding terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Bosnia. (Id. ¶ 210.) According to Plaintiffs, NCB also provided financial services "and other support" to Muwafaq, which merged with al Qaeda in 2001.⁶ (Id. ¶¶ 210, 212.)

Defendant ARB is also a Saudi-based financial institution that offers Sharia-compliant banking and investment products. (Id. ¶ 153.) Plaintiffs allege that in the years leading up to the 9/11 Attacks, ARB, as well as members of the Al Rajhi family, provided funds and financial services to numerous charitable organizations that operated as fronts for al Qaeda, including IIRO and the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation ("AHIF"), among others. (Id. ¶¶ 173–74, 183.) For instance, Plaintiffs allege that ARB maintained at least twenty-four bank accounts and handled "unusual" transactions for AHIF, which operated as a front for al Qaeda in thirteen different countries. (Id. ¶ 158.) According to a July 2007 press account, a top AHIF official deposited $130,000 into an ARB account in Saudi Arabia in 2000, which was then sent to al Qaeda fighters in Chechnya. (Id. ) That same article also describes the Al Rajhi family's longstanding support of Islamic charities suspected of funding terrorism, including by allegedly trying to "conceal and disguise unusual transfers" through such entities to evade government authorities. (Id. ¶¶ 159–61.) According to Plaintiffs, ARB and members of the Al Rajhi family knew that the charities were acting as fronts for al Qaeda because members of the family held leadership positions with several of those organizations and were thus privy to their terrorism connections. (Id. ¶¶ 174, 180–81.)

Plaintiffs allege further that al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations ordered their operatives in Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Yemen to use ARB to fund and facilitate terrorist attacks. (Id. ¶¶ 162–63.) Consistent with those directives, Plaintiffs claim that multiple instances have been discovered where bank accounts at ARB were used to fund terrorist attacks. (Id. ¶ 163.) For example, Plaintiffs claim that funds were funneled through ARB to members of an al Qaeda cell in Hamburg, Germany. (Id. ) One of the members of that cell was 9/11 hijacker Abdulaziz al Omari, who received funds in his ARB account as late as September 7, 2001—just four days before the 9/11 Attacks. (Id. ) Plaintiffs also allege that Omari utilized a credit card issued by ARB when he was planning the 9/11 Attacks. (Id. )

In addition to providing al Qaeda and its operatives with financial services, Plaintiffs allege that ARB provided al Qaeda with other forms of operational support. (Id. ¶ 165.) For instance, Plaintiffs claim that ARB's couriers delivered money to an al Qaeda affiliate in Indonesia. (Id. ) According to Plaintiffs, ARB also sponsored a travel visa for a money courier who worked for Ayman al Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command. (Id. ¶ 166.) Plaintiffs allege that this type of support and the nature of the services ARB generally provided to al Qaeda played a critical role in enabling it to carry out the 9/11 Attacks. (Id. ¶ 195.) Indeed, Plaintiffs describe ARB as "one of al Qaeda's most essential and critical partners in the years preceding" the 9/11 Attacks. (Id. ¶155.)

B. The Saudi Binladin Group

Defendant SBG is a Saudi-based construction company founded by Osama bin Laden's father and still controlled by the bin Laden family. (Id. ¶ 69.) Plaintiffs allege that SBG is an "integral part" of the al Qaeda network and that the assistance it provided to the terrorist organization during its early years was essential in allowing al Qaeda to carry out the 9/11 Attacks....