HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023414.jpg

In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001., 2012 WL 257568 (2012) oF 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 113 114 LS 116 JA4394, JA3662, 3665, 3671, 3677-81, 4399-4401. JA4024-30. JA3785, 3870, 4318-19, 4529. JA3832-33, 4302-05, 4314-20, 4528-45. JA3870, 4528-45. JA3724-28, 3832-33, 4302-05, 4314-20. The district court dismissed the Burnett ATA claim against Al Rajhi Bank. SPA55-57 (Terrorist Attacks I). The district court also dismissed the remaining ATA claims against Al Rajhi Bank brought on behalf of the other plaintiff groups. SPA63, 65-66. SPA99-103 (SAMBA J); SPA57-58 (Terrorist Attacks I). The district court also denied plaintiffs’ motions for leave to amend their pleadings, SPA103-04 (SAMBA J), and for reconsideration of the denial of their leave to amend, SPA111-15 (SAMBA I). See infra 82 n.113. SPA245 (Terrorist Attacks V). SPA246-47 (Terrorist Attacks V); SPA109-10 (DMI-Kamel); SPA59-60 (Terrorist Attacks J). SPA246-47 (Terrorist Attacks V); SPA109-10 (DMI-Kamel); SPA59-60 (Terrorist Attacks I). See infra pp. Point I.C (discussing treatment of support in mid-1990s). See infra pp. Point I.B (discussing district court’s treatment of pleadings regarding defendants’ mental state). SPA245-46 (Terrorist Attacks V); SPA106, 110 (DA4-Kamel); SPA102-03 (SAMBA IT); SPAS55 (Terrorist Attacks I). A bank’s provision of banking services constitutes material support of terrorism if the services were provided “knowing or intend[ing] that such provision would generally facilitate ... terrorist activities ...” Wultz, 755 F. Supp. 2d at 44-46; see also Linde, 384 F. Supp. 2d at 588 (“[G]iven plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the knowing and intentional nature of the Bank’s activities, there is nothing ‘routine’ about the services the Bank is alleged to provide”); Weiss, 453 F. Supp. 2d at 625 (“Where the Bank knows that the groups to which it provides services are engaged in terrorist activities even the provision of basic banking services may qualify as material support” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). Contrary to the district court’s findings, SPA112-14 (SAMBA I), SPA103-04 (SAMBA J), the proposed amendments to plaintiffs’ pleadings clearly did sufficiently allege, inter alia, that Saudi American Bank had the requisite mental state when it provided material support to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. R.1926, pp. 3-6, n.10. Accordingly, if this court finds that the pleadings do not state a claim for relief, this Court should remand this claim for the district court to revisit its denial of the motion for reconsideration of its denial of the motion for leave to amend. This report was published subsequent to the initial briefing below, and submitted in connection with plaintiffs’ opposition to NCB’s renewed motion to dismiss. However, the facts reflected in the report were of record from the outset, as reflected in plaintiffs” pleadings as to Al Rajhi Bank. The annex lists nine treaties, including the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, done at the Hague on 16 December 1970; the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 23 December 1971; and the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997. See R.111-2, at 71-74. In the context of the previous appeal as to Saudi Arabia, this Court noted that plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the terror sponsorship activities of the Saudi government charities “include a wealth of detail (conscientiously cited to WESTLAW HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023414