In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN

This MDL concerns enforcement of judgments against the Taliban and other terrorism defendants; Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB) funds are held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY).
Plaintiffs in Havlish and Doe obtained writs of execution targeting the DAB Funds; those writs are stayed pending resolution of competing claims and a Government statement of interest.
The U.S. President issued an Executive Order blocking the DAB Funds; OFAC issued a license directing $3.5 billion to be held for the Afghan people, but the transfer cannot occur while writs remain unresolved.
The Amduso Plaintiffs (victims of the 1998 embassy bombings) hold judgments against Sudan and Iran, not Afghanistan or the Taliban, and have not attached the DAB Funds.
Amduso moved to intervene to seek a declaratory judgment that neither they nor the Havlish/Doe plaintiffs have an explicit right to the DAB Funds and that any equitable distribution should go to the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund (VSSTF).
The Court denied the motion to intervene and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the proposed declaratory judgment, finding lack of cognizable interest, adequate representation by existing parties, and that permissive intervention and declaratory jurisdiction would cause prejudice and delay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)	Amduso: timely; as terrorism victims they have a direct interest in equitable distribution of DAB Funds	Opposing parties: Amduso lack a direct, substantial, legally protectable interest in DAB Funds; others already represent these interests; turnover will permit claims	Denied — Amduso lack cognizable interest and cannot show inadequate representation
2. Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)	Amduso: declaratory action will clarify who may claim DAB Funds	Opponents: would unduly delay, complicate MDL, duplicate turnover/interpleader procedures	Denied — intervention would cause prejudice, delay, and inefficiency
3. Whether court should exercise declaratory-judgment jurisdiction	Amduso: declaratory relief appropriate to settle entitlement questions	Court/Govt: Wilton factors favor refusing jurisdiction because action won’t finalize controversy and efficient remedies exist	Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over declaratory action
4. Whether Amduso may compel DAB Funds to VSSTF	Amduso: seeks declaration routing funds to VSSTF for broad victim relief	Opponents/Govt: interest speculative; OFAC/Exec Order do not mandate VSSTF; no legal basis to force distribution to VSSTF here	Held: Interest is speculative and not legally protectable; no guarantee funds would go to VSSTF

United States v. Pitney Bowes, 25 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 1994) (sets Rule 24(a) intervention elements)
Floyd v. City of New York, 770 F.3d 1051 (2d Cir. 2014) (intervention decision rests in district court discretion)
Bridgeport Guardians, Inc. v. Delmonte, 602 F.3d 469 (2d Cir. 2010) (interest must be direct, substantial, legally protectable for intervention)
Wash. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 922 F.2d 92 (2d Cir. 1990) (contingent or remote interests do not satisfy intervention)
In re Bank of New York Derivative Litig., 320 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2003) (factors relevant to permissive intervention)
Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995) (district courts have discretion to decline declaratory judgments)
Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods Ltd., 346 F.3d 357 (2d Cir. 2003) (articulates factors for exercising declaratory-judgment jurisdiction)
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (one is not bound by an in personam judgment to which they were not a party)
Weininger v. Castro, 462 F. Supp. 2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (turnover and interpleader used to adjudicate competing claims to assets)
Hausler v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 127 F. Supp. 3d 17 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (turnover/interpleader procedures for asset claims)