HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017830.jpg
2.19 MB
Extraction Summary
4
People
8
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Federal court opinion / legal case law
File Size:
2.19 MB
Summary
This document is page 765 of a Federal District Court opinion (S.D.N.Y.) dated January 18, 2005, regarding litigation stemming from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001). The text discusses jurisdictional issues concerning a defendant named 'Privatbank' and dismisses claims against individual defendants Horath and Buchmann. While the document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, often associated with investigations into financial institutions (like Deutsche Bank) that may overlap with Epstein investigations, this specific page contains no direct mention of Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Frances E. Bivens | Affiant |
Submitted an Affidavit with Exhibit B regarding Privatbank's annual report.
|
| Horath | Defendant |
Individual defendant whose motion to dismiss was granted for lack of personal jurisdiction.
|
| Buchmann | Defendant |
Individual defendant whose motion to dismiss was granted for lack of personal jurisdiction.
|
| Osama Bin Laden | Defendant |
Named in case caption: Tremsky v. Osama Bin Laden.
|
Organizations (8)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Privatbank |
Corporate defendant subject to jurisdictional discovery regarding investing activities in the US.
|
|
| United States District Court, S.D. New York |
The court issuing the opinion.
|
|
| Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp. |
Named in case caption.
|
|
| Al Qaeda Islamic Army |
Named in case caption.
|
|
| Kingdom of Saudi Arabia |
Named in case caption.
|
|
| Vigilant Insurance |
Named in case caption.
|
|
| Federal Insurance |
Named in case caption.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by footer 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017830'.
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdictional context for business contacts.
|
|
|
Location of the Southern District Court.
|
Relationships (2)
Plaintiffs seeking jurisdictional discovery against Privatbank.
Key Quotes (4)
"Plaintiffs point out that Privatbank's website and its 2001 Annual Report state that Privatbank engages in transactions involving securities issued in the United States."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017830.jpg
Quote #1
"Because plaintiffs have identified a genuine issue of jurisdictional fact, the question of general jurisdiction cannot be resolved on the pleadings and affidavits alone."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017830.jpg
Quote #2
"For the reasons set forth above, the Sovereign defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017830.jpg
Quote #3
"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 defendants are hereby dismissed."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017830.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,354 characters)
IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 765
Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
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.
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 in the United
States
tional Discovery as to Privatbank's
Investing Activities in 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)(2) for having such "con-
tinuous and systematic general business
contacts" with the United States. See
Aerogroup Int'l, Inc., 956 F.Supp. at 439.
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)(2) for having such "con-
tinuous and systematic general business
contacts" with the United States. See
Aerogroup Int'l, Inc., 956 F.Supp. at 439.
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).
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.
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.
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
In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp.
Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army
Tremsky v. Osama Bin Laden Salvo v.
Al Qaeda Islamic Army Burnett v. Al
Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp. Federal In-
surance v. Al Qaeda Barrera v. Al Qae-
da Islamic Army Vigilant Insurance v.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army
Tremsky v. Osama Bin Laden Salvo v.
Al Qaeda Islamic Army Burnett v. Al
Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp. Federal In-
surance v. Al Qaeda 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.
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.
S.D. New York.
Jan. 18, 2005.
Background: Survivors, family members,
and representatives of victims of Septem-
and representatives of victims of Septem-
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017830
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document