HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017839.jpg

774 tacks, consisting of one speech in United States, and handful of investments in Unit- ed States through banks with which he was affiliated, were not sufficiently sys- tematic and continuous for general person- al jurisdiction in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by survivors of victims of attacks. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2381 et seq. 61. Federal Courts <76.20, 86 Even assuming that district court had personal jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian financial institutions in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, Saudi Arabian Prince’s position as officer of such institu- tions was not basis for personal jurisdic- tion over him, where there was no allega- tion he had knowledge or involvement in any al Qaeda accounts at any banks he chaired. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq. 62. Courts €12(2.20) The mere fact that a corporation is subject to jurisdiction in New York does not mean that individual officers may be hauled before New York courts without any showing that the individuals them- selves maintained a presence or conducted business in New York. 63. Federal Courts <-96 Even assuming that name of founder of Saudi Arabian company appeared in “Golden Chain,” which allegedly listed ear- ly direct donors to al Qaeda, such list was insufficient to establish personal jurisdic- tion in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, absent indications of who wrote list, when it was written, or for what pur- pose it was written. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2831 et seq. 64. Federal Courts 96 Appearance of Saudi Arabian watch retailer’s name in “Golden Chain,’ which allegedly listed early direct donors to al 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES Qaeda, was insufficient to establish person- al jurisdiction in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by survivors of victims of Septem- ber 11, 2001 attacks, inasmuch as list did not establish his involvement in terrorist conspiracy culminating in attacks and did not demonstrate that he purposefully di- rected his activities at United States. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq. 65. Federal Courts <=97 Limited discovery would be permitted, at dismissal stage of Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, with regard to whether Saudi Arabian bank’s contacts with United States were sufficient for ex- ercise of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process, inasmuch as contacts, including former presence of bank’s branch office and subsidiary in United States, bank’s instigation of lawsuit in United States, and its advertisements in United States publications, when taken to- gether, might establish personal jurisdic- tion. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; Fed.Rules Civ. Proe.Rule 12(b)(1), 28 U.S.C.A. 66. Federal Courts <=94 Allegations of survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks were insuffi- cient to establish personal jurisdiction over director of charity in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action, inasmuch as complaint did not contain any specific actions by director from which district court could infer that he purposefully directed his activities at United States, his affiliations with entities that were alleged to have United States contacts would not sustain jurisdiction, and his being shareholder in United States company was not sufficient for jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq. 67. Federal Courts <=94 Allegations of survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks were insuffi- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017839