HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017830.jpg

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 765 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d_ 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) tain general jurisdiction over them, all claims asserted against those individual defendants are dismissed for lack of per- sonal jurisdiction. 3. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Jurisdic- tional Discovery as to Privatbank’s Investing Activities i the United States [37] Plaintiffs point out that Privat- bank’s website and its 2001 Annual Report state that Privatbank engages in transac- tions involving securities issued in the United States. (2001 Annual Report at 3, attached to Affidavit of Frances E. Bivens at Exhibit B). There is no allegation that transactions are related to the claims as- serted here. Accordingly, they are only relevant to this Court’s determination of whether the exercise of general jurisdic- tion over Privatbank is warranted pursu- ant to Rule 4(k)@) for having such “con- tinuous and systematic general business contacts” with the United States. See Aerogroup Intl, Inc., 956 F.Supp. at 489. Because plaintiffs have identified a gen- uine issue of jurisdictional fact, the ques- tion of general jurisdiction cannot be re- solved on the pleadings and affidavits alone. Thus, plaintiffs are entitled to ju- risdictional discovery regarding the extent of defendant Privatbank’s general business contacts with the United States in the years 1992—1998, a period that includes the relevant period in this action and five preceding years. See In re Magnetic Au- diotape Antitrust Litig., 334 F.3d at 207- 08; see also, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 F.3d at 569-70 (holding that the time peri- od relevant for determining extent of a defendant’s contacts for general jurisdic- tion purpose should include a number of years prior to the events giving rise to the claims asserted). IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Sovereign defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Plain- tiffs’ claims alleging takings in violation of international law, promissory estoppel, eq- uitable estoppel, and unjust enrichment— counts seven, nine, and ten in the com- plaint—are hereby dismissed as against the Sovereign defendants. In addition, the motion of individual defendants Horath and Buchmann to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted and all claims asserted against those de- fendants are hereby dismissed. Because this Court finds that an issue of jurisdictional fact exists as to the existence of general jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 4(k)(2) as to corporate defendant Privat- bank, its motion to dismiss is denied with- out prejudice to its renewal pending con- clusion of jurisdictional discovery on that issue. © & KEY NUMBER SYSTEM sq0oms In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp. Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Tremsky v. Qsama Bin Laden Salvo v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp. Federal In- surance v. Al Qaida Barrera v. Al Qae- da Islamic Army Vigilant Insurance v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Nos. 03 MDL 1570(RCC), 02 CIV. 1616, 02 CIV. 6977, 02 CIV. 7300, 03 CIV. 5071, 03 CIV. 5738, 03 CIV. 6978, 03 CIV. 7036, 03 CIV. 8591. United States District Court, S.D. New York. Jan. 18, 2005. Background: Survivors, family members, and representatives of victims of Septem- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017830