Gill v. Arab Bank, PLC
893 F. Supp. 2d 474
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Gill, a US-Israeli citizen, was wounded in 2008 by Gaza-fired gunshots attributed to Hamas.
- Plaintiff sues Arab Bank PLC, alleging it provided financial services to Hamas and affiliates.
- Bank NY branch settled with the OCC in 2005, paying a $24 million penalty for alleged controls failures.
- Amended complaint asserts five ATA-based claims, including aiding-and-abetting theory.
- Court grants in part and denies in part, stating aiding-and-abetting theory is not viable under §2333(a).
- Court indicates need for summary judgment to resolve material factual issues and evidentiary considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2333(a) permits aiding-and-abetting liability. | Gill relies on secondary liability theories under ATA. | Section 2333(a) is silent on aiding-and-abetting; cannot support such claims. | Aiding-and-abetting theory is not viable under §2333(a). |
| Whether the Act-of-War defense bars the ATA claims. | Claims should proceed absent a finding that acts were not acts of war. | Act-of-War exception shields certain conduct. | Act-of-War defense not dispositive at the pleading stage; requires summary judgment record. |
| Whether political-question doctrine deprives jurisdiction over ATA claims. | ATA suits are authorized; political question not a barrier. | Foreign policy issues might be nonjusticiable. | Political-question doctrine does not bar adjudication of ATA claims. |
| Whether other ATA claims (conspiracy, material support, etc.) survive on pleadings. | Allegations sufficiently plead claims under §2332, §2339A/B/C. | Some elements require more proof; aiding-and-abetting theory rejected. | Second–fifth claims remain viable; aiding-and-abetting claim dismissed. |
| Whether proximate causation and mental-state standards are met for claims two through five. | Plaintiff must show intentional/reckless conduct and causation. | Higher mental-state thresholds may apply; causation complex. | Reckless/intentional standards required; proximate causation must be shown; summary judgment may be needed later. |
Key Cases Cited
- Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro, 939 F.2d 152 (2d Cir. 1991) (2d Cir. 1991) (ATA context; supports judicial handling of claims against terrorist entities)
- Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994) (U.S.) ( Statutory text controls secondary-liability questions; no implied aiding‑and‑abetting liability absent explicit provision)
- Boim v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 549 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2008) (7th Cir. 2008) (En banc: allows/contends aiding-and-abetting liability in ATA context; discusses mental-state and causation issues)
- Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 384 F. Supp. 2d 571 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (ATS/ATA pleading standards; discusses secondary liability arguments)
- Abecassis v. Wyatt, 704 F. Supp. 2d 623 (S.D. Tex. 2010) (S.D. Tex. 2010) (Survey of ATA civil remedy provision and scienter standards)
- Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (D.D.C. 2010) (Discusses ATA liability scope and secondary-liability debates)