On October 10, 2014, Arab Bank filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the District Court made many serious errors in legal and evidentiary rulings, and in the trial structure, that prejudiced the outcome of the trial. The filing, known as a Rule 59 motion, requests the Linde Court vacate the verdict issued by the jury and order a new trial which will afford the Bank a fair opportunity to defend itself and will hold the plaintiffs to their burdens of proof under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA).
In its petition, the Bank argues:
- The Court relieved the plaintiffs of their burden to prove the Bank’s services were a “but for” and “direct” proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries, in conflict with both U.S. Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedents.
- The Court mistakenly instructed the jury that the provision of routine banking services by itself can be an act of international terrorism. However, the ATA does not include an aiding and abetting provision.
- The Court erred by applying sanctions the U.S. government concluded were significantly flawed and effectively denied the Bank an opportunity to defend itself.
- The Court improperly excluded all evidence of the Bank’s compliance with foreign law, which the Bank sought to introduce as evidence of its innocent state of mind.
- The Court admitted numerous, inflammatory hearsay statements, pictures and video claims of responsibility by alleged members of terrorist groups or from websites alleged to be connected to terrorist groups.
- The Court erred when it excluded all of the Bank’s experts on the Saudi Committee, which the plaintiffs put at the center of their case and claim was tied to terrorist groups.
- The Court erred by aggregating in one trial 24 separate acts of terrorism that spanned nearly four years involving injuries alleged by 297 plaintiffs. Allowing the jury to hear a mass of evidence covering specific acts of terrorism that was irrelevant to other acts was extremely prejudicial to the Bank and a serious error in the structure of the trial.
In addition to the motion for a new trial, Arab Bank also renewed its September 8, 2014 Rule 50 motion asking the Linde Court to enter judgment as a matter of law.
Read the Bank’s Rule 59 motion here.