Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC
944 F. Supp. 2d 215
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- During oral argument, the court reserved decision on whether plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claims would be dismissed after Rothstein v. UBS AG held ATA § 2333(a) does not permit civil aiding and abetting liability.
- Rothstein notes Congress’s silence in § 2333(a) regarding aiding and abetting, contrasted with criminal provisions elsewhere in the ATA.
- Second Circuit suggested civil conspiracy claims may be treated like civil aiding and abetting under § 2333(a) and potentially foreclosed.
- Second Circuit has extended Central Bank of Denver principles to § 10(b) conspiracy claims, implying conspiracy liability would be inconsistent with statutory text absent explicit provision.
- Plaintiffs argued Rothstein should be read narrowly to criminal statutes, while conspiracy is a separate civil theory; court considered the broader reasoning.
- Court ultimately dismissed all conspiracy claims under the ATA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ATA § 2333(a) permits civil conspiracy claims | Rothstein reads no civil conspiracy liability under § 2333(a). | Silence in § 2333(a) implies no civil conspiracy liability; parallels with aiding and abetting raise concerns. | Yes; conspiracy claims under § 2333(a) are dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rothstein v. UBS AG, 708 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2013) (ATA does not permit civil aiding and abetting liability under § 2333(a))
- Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1994) (no general civil aiding and abetting liability; silence matters)
- Dinsmore v. Squadron, Ellenoff, Plesent, Sheinfeld & Sorkin, 135 F.3d 837 (2d Cir. 1998) (conspiracy liability analyzed alongside § 10(b) aiding and abetting framework)