Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21189

The court addresses whether New York's long-arm statute § 302(a)(1) permits personal jurisdiction over Lebanese Canadian Bank (LCB) in light of the New York Court of Appeals' Licci III decision.
Plaintiffs allege LCB, via a New York correspondent account with AmEx, wired millions for Shahid, a Hizbollah financial arm, to support terrorist activities.
District court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of jurisdiction, concluding no prima facie basis under § 302(a)(1) and doubting due process.
The New York Court of Appeals held that LCB’s use of the New York account to effect multiple transfers could constitute a transaction of business and that claims can arise from that activity.
On appeal, this court vacates the district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and remands for further proceedings consistent with Licci III.
Subject matter jurisdiction questions remain for the district court in light of Kiobel and related authorities.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does a foreign bank's use of a NY correspondent account constitute transaction of business under § 302(a)(1)?	LCB's dozens of NY transfers show purposeful availment.	Maintenance/use of a correspondent account alone is not sufficient.	Yes; repeated NY transfers constitute transaction of business.
Do plaintiffs' claims arise from LCB's NY transaction of business under § 302(a)(1)?	Claims arise from LCB's use of the NY account to aid Hizballah.	Not all elements relate to NY activities; causation is limited.	Yes; relatedness exists where at least one element ties to NY contacts.
Does due process permit specific jurisdiction over LCB based on these contacts?	Minimum contacts exist; LCB purposefully availed itself of NY banking system.	Israel-Israel injuries and foreign locus of events complicate the linkage.	Yes; minimum contacts and reasonableness analysis support jurisdiction.
Should the ATS subject-matter jurisdiction issue be addressed on remand in light of Kiobel?	ATS claims survive under Kiobel's framework as applicable at the district court level.	Kiobel undermines ATS subject-matter jurisdiction for corporate defendants.	Remand to address subject-matter jurisdiction for ATS claims in light of Kiobel.

Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, S.A.L., 20 N.Y.3d 327 (N.Y. 2012) (foreign-bank NY activity can satisfy 'transaction of business' under CPLR 302(a)(1))
Amigo Foods Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank-N.Y., 39 N.Y.2d 391 (N.Y. 1976) (use of NY correspondent account may be 'transaction of business' if purposeful)
In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 538 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2008) (express aiming required for certain out-of-state conduct (effects test))
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (effects test framework for jurisdiction where conduct is aimed at forum)
Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 305 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2002) (minimum contacts require purposeful availment and foreseeability)
Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007) (multi-factor analysis for reasonableness prong of due process)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (distinction between general and specific jurisdiction; totality of contacts)
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (U.S. 2013) (presumption against extraterritoriality limits ATS jurisdiction)
Solé Resort, S.A. de C.V. v. Allure Resorts Mgmt., LLC, 450 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2006) (two-prong test for NY long-arm jurisdiction)
Chloé v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2010) (context of minimum contacts and forum-specific considerations)
Licci III, 20 N.Y.3d 327 (N.Y. 2012) (NY Court of Appeals confirms transaction and nexus findings for LCB)