HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017888.jpg

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 823 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d_ 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) Mar—Jac Investment, Inc., Mena Corpora- tion, Reston Investment, Inc, Sterling Charitable Gift Fund, Sterling Manage- ment Group, Inc., Success Foundation, and York Foundation.” Jd. 1224. Allegedly, many of the entities are related by com- mon management, few of them maintained a physical presence at their purported place of business, and they all “have long acted as fully integrated components of al Qaeda’s logistical and financial support in- frastructure.” Jd. 19 225, 226. Plaintiffs argue the Court has personal jurisdiction over the SAAR Network be- cause it participated in the conspiracy that resulted in catastrophic effects in this dis- trict. After an ongoing investigation in the Eastern District of Virginia, federal authorities raided the offices of several of these Defendants in Herndon, Virginia in March 2002. Jd. 1227. The investigation has allegedly revealed that SAAR Net- work funds have been transferred to des- ignated terrorists and al Qaeda operatives Youssef Nada and Ahmed Idris Nasred- din. Jd. 1228; see Exec. Order No. 13224 (designating individuals as_ terrorists). Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that the in- vestigation has revealed that SAAR Net- work entities have engaged in transactions with Bait Ul-mal, Inc. (BMD, which has transferred funds to terrorist organiza- tions including al Qaeda, and materially supported the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa. Federal Complaint 11 229-230. [69] At this stage, the Court must ac- cept as true Plaintiffs’ allegations con- cerning the relationships of the SAAR Network. Jd. 19222, 226. Defendants correctly argue, however, that Defendants have provided scant basis for linking these entities under the SAAR Network title. Certain of these groups may be subject to personal jurisdiction in light of Plaintiffs’ allegation that they purposeful- ly directing its activities at the United States by transferring money to designat- ed terrorists Youssef Nada and Ahmed Idris Nasreddin, particularly if they in- tended the money to support terrorism. Id. 1228. Additionally, general jurisdic- tion could be appropriate for the SAAR Network entities having offices in Virgi- nia. Jd. 1227. Accordingly, the SAAR Network’s motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice. The parties are to en- gage in jurisdictional discovery to deter- mine which of the Network’s entities have a presence in Virginia and which entities transferred money to Nada and Nasred- din. 10. Adel A.J. Batterjee The Burnett Plaintiffs claim that Defen- dant Adel A.J. Batterjee is an associate of Osama bin Laden. Burnett Complaint 9181. On December 21, 2004, the U.S. Department of Treasury designated Mr. Batterjee as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. See Dec. 23, 2004 Bierstein let- ter to Court; Exec. Order No. 13224. Mr. Batterjee is the chairman of Al Shamal Islamic Bank, “an instrumental bank in Osama bin Laden’s financial support net- work.” Burnett Complaint 1365. Mr. Batterjee is also chairman of al-Bir Saudi Organization, whose United States branch, Defendant BIF, is allegedly a “front for al Qaeda sponsorship.” Burnett Complaint 11 75, 196, 199. BIF is also a designated terrorist organization. See Exec. Order No. 13224. The Saudi government closed AlLBir in 1993 “at the same time it was closing other organizations for ties to ter- rorism.” Burnett Complaint 1183. Mr. Batterjee then allegedly moved the chari- ty’s headquarters to Chicago in the name of BIF. fd. 1183. Mr. Batterjee is listed as one of BIF’s three founders in its arti- cles of incorporation filed in Illinois. 7d. 1183. Through an alias, Mr. Batterjee allegedly sent money to BIF’s branches. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017888