U.S. Supreme Court tosses ruling that revived suit against Iran central bank

  • World
  • Monday, 13 Jan 2020

FILE PHOTO: The top of U.S. Supreme Court building is lit at dusk in Washington, U.S., December 18, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out a lower court ruling that revived a $1.68 billion lawsuit against Iran's central bank by families of troops killed in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon in light of a new federal law that could help the plaintiffs recover damages.

Though Bank Markazi, as well as banks in Luxembourg and Italy, were contesting the lower court ruling that the families could try to seize Iranian assets held outside the United States, the justices directed a lower court to consider the new law that could give the families access to the funds.

The law, signed by President Donald Trump on Dec. 20 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, removes hurdles for courts to seize assets held abroad to satisfy U.S. court judgements against Iran.

The Supreme Court acted on the case at a time of high tensions between the United States and Iran, with Trump ordering a drone strike in Baghdad that killed a senior Iranian military commander on Jan. 3, and Iran retaliating by filing missiles at bases housing U.S. forces in Iraq. Iran's clerical rulers were also facing a third day of protests on Monday after authorities acknowledged shooting down a passenger plane by accident last week.

The 1983 car bombing attack at the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut killed 241 U.S. service members. The cases stem from efforts by the families of those killed to secure compensation from Iran after a federal court in Washington deemed them victims of state-sponsored terrorism and awarded $3.8 billion in damages.

The families in 2013 sought to seize bond proceeds allegedly owned by Bank Markazi and processed by Clearstream Banking S.A., based in Luxembourg, and Banca UBAE S.p.A, an Italian bank, to partially satisfy the court judgment.

The legal dispute centres on a 1976 law called the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which generally shields foreign governments from liability in American courts but carves out certain exceptions, including for claims against countries like Iran that have been designated by the United States as state sponsors of terrorism.

A federal trial court dismissed the families' claims, saying the assets were located in Luxembourg and thus, under the FSIA, immune from seizure. But in 2017 the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, reviving the suit.

Bank Markazi appealed to the Supreme Court, saying that the 2nd Circuit ruling violated international law and "threatens the U.S. assets of U.S. companies by exposing them to reciprocal treatment by foreign courts."

The Trump administration said the 2nd Circuit decision was flawed because it was unlikely the FSIA allowed for foreign government seizure of assets held abroad. But the administration advised the justices to send the case back to lower courts to analyse the newly passed law's effect on the case.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

Article type: metered
User Type: anonymous web
User Status:
Campaign ID: 1
Cxense type: free
User access status: 3

Did you find this article insightful?


Next In World

Japanese companies leverage AI, big data in fight against food waste
Modi takes home-grown vaccine as India widens immunisation drive
Google’s Stadia problem? A video game unit that’s not Googley enough
‘Spooky’ AI tool brings dead relatives’ photos to life
U.S. envoy on Afghan peace process to visit Afghanistan, Qatar for talks
‘Grand Theft Auto’ blamed for recent surge in carjackings in Chicago; gaming experts object
Driverless bus hits streets of Malaga in southern Spain
Spokeswoman for Japan PM Suga resigns over expensive dinners with his son
How tweet deleting increased in 2020
AstraZeneca has sold its stake in Moderna for more than $1 billion - The Times

Stories You'll Enjoy