HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017854.jpg

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 789 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d_ 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) [11] The Court disagrees with this reli- ance on Dole Food. The Supreme Court resolved two questions in Dole Food. “The first [was] whether a corporate subsidiary can claim instrumentality status where the foreign state does not own a majority of its shares but does own a majority of the shares of a corporate parent one or more tiers above the subsidiary. The second question [was] whether a corporation’s in- strumentality status is defined as of the time an alleged tort or other actionable wrong occurred or, on the other hand, at the time the suit is filed.” Jd. at 471, 128 S.Ct. 1655. The Supreme Court held that a foreign state’s ownership of an entity must be direct for the entity to be consid- ered an instrumentality. Jd. at 474, 128 S.Ct. 1655. The Supreme Court also ruled that ownership must be determined as of the date on which the complaint was filed. Id. at 480, 123 S.Ct. 1655. Neither of these points of law speaks, however, to the circumstances under which an individual is covered by the FSIA. Indeed, numerous other courts that have addressed this issue have held that the relevant inquiry for individuals is simply whether the acts in question were undertaken at a time when the individual was acting in an official ca- pacity. See, e.g., Velasco, 370 F.3d at 398- 99; Byrd, 182 F.3d at 388; Bryks, 906 F.Supp. at 210. This Court considers that precedent to be more consistent with the FSIA and unaltered by the decision in Dole Food. Thus, it deems Prince Turki the equivalent of the foreign state inas- 24. After the parties submitted their briefs and argued the FSIA issue, the Ashton Plaintiffs filed supplemental affidavits, without leave of the Court, to contest, for the first time, the timing of the PIF’s majority ownership. See 03 MD 1570 Docket # 455. The parties agree that the PIF bought 50% of NCB shares in May 1999. See John Fawcett Sept. 23, 2004 Supplemental Affidavit at Ex. 1 (“Fawcett Supp. Aff.”). Later in 1999, the PIF sold 10% of its shares to the General Organization for much as the complaints allege actions tak- en in his official capacity as the head of the DGI. Accordingly, both Prince Sultan and Prince Turki are immune from suit for their official acts unless an exception un- der the FSIA applies. 2. National Commercial Bank NCB submits that it is an instrumentali- ty of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and therefore immune from suit. See Decl. of Nizar Bin Obaid Madani, Assistant Minis- ter of Foreign Affairs of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 12, at Berger Decl. Ex. 7 (“It is the position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that NCB is a government instru- mentality of the Kingdom of Saudi Ara- bia.”). To enjoy immunity from suit under the FSIA, NCB must demonstrate that it is an agency or instrumentality, or a politi- cal subdivision of the Kingdom. 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a). As explained above, the FSIA defines an “agency or instrumentality” as (1) “a separate legal person, ...(2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdi- vision thereof,” and (8) a non-U.S. citizen. 28 U.S.C. § 160300). Accordingly, NCB claims that (1) it is a separate legal person, (2) at the time the suit was filed a majority of its shares were owned by an administra- tive unit of the Saudi Ministry of Finance, the Public Investment Fund (““PIF”),* and (8) it is not a citizen of the United States Social Insurance. Fawcett Supp. Aff. at Ex. 2. Late in 2002 the PIF agreed to buy 30% of the remaining shares from the bin Mahfouz family, but Plaintiffs claim the purchase was not completed until January 2003, after the lawsuit was filed on September 4, 2002. See Fawcett Supp. Aff. at Ex. 3 & 4 (mews ac- counts of sale). explained below, the Court finds it unneces- sary to resolve this dispute at this time. For the reasons that will be HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017854