Owens v. Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S.
21-610
| 2d Cir. | May 2, 2023Background
- Plaintiffs are 876 U.S. government employees or their survivors who obtained default judgments (over $10 billion total) against Iran for terrorist attacks between 1983–2007 and now seek to collect those judgments.
- Plaintiffs sued Türkiye Halk Bankası A.Ş. (Halkbank), alleging it fraudulently funneled over $1 billion for Iran through correspondent accounts at U.S. banks in the Southern District of New York, violating U.S. sanctions and frustrating plaintiffs’ collection efforts.
- Causes of action include rescission and turnover under New York debtor/creditor and CPLR statutes and turnover under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA).
- The district court granted Halkbank’s motion for conditional dismissal on forum non conveniens, finding Turkey an adequate alternative forum and giving plaintiffs’ forum choice minimal deference; the parties agreed to litigate in Turkey and the court entered dismissal.
- Plaintiffs appealed the forum non conveniens dismissal to the Second Circuit, challenging (1) the degree of deference to their forum choice, (2) adequacy of Turkey as an alternative forum, and (3) the private and public interest balancing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deference to plaintiffs’ U.S. forum choice | Majority of plaintiffs are U.S. citizens; their choice merits strong deference | Most plaintiffs live abroad; case connections and evidence tie primarily to Turkey, so minimal deference appropriate | Court: Minimal deference proper (most plaintiffs reside abroad; key evidence/witnesses in Turkey) |
| Adequacy of Turkey as alternative forum | Turkish courts unlikely to provide justice; Turkish law may not recognize U.S. judgments or provide necessary remedies | Halkbank amenable to service in Turkey; Turkish law provides independent causes of action and judgment-recognition mechanisms | Court: Turkey is adequate (plaintiffs failed to show corruption or lack of due process in Turkish civil courts; alternative remedies exist) |
| Private and public interest factors | U.S. forum better serves terrorism-victim policy and plaintiffs’ enforcement needs | Evidence, witnesses, and relevant conduct are largely in Turkey; Turkey has strong interest in disputes involving its bank | Court: Private and public factors favor Turkey (trial in U.S. would be inconvenient and costly; Turkey has greater local interest) |
Key Cases Cited
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (framework for deference to plaintiff’s forum and adequacy of alternative forum)
- Iragorri v. United Techs. Corp., 274 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (three-step forum non conveniens inquiry)
- Norex Petrol. Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., 416 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2005) (defendant’s burden to establish adequate alternative forum)
- Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petrol. Co., 226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000) (standards for alternative forum adequacy)
- Monegasque De Reassurances S.A.M. v. Nak Naftogaz of Ukr., 311 F.3d 488 (2d Cir. 2002) (forum inadequacy requires absence of due process)
- Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2009) (plaintiff’s burden to produce evidence of foreign forum corruption)
- Aguas Lenders Recovery Grp. v. Suez, S.A., 585 F.3d 696 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard of review for forum non conveniens dismissal)
- Figueiredo Ferraz E Engenharia de Projeto Ltda. v. Republic of Peru, 665 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2011) (definition of adequate alternative forum)
- Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 940 (2023) (jurisdictional issues in related criminal proceedings)