On November 5, 2014, Arab Bank filed a motion for certification for interlocutory appeal in the Linde case, requesting that the Court certify three questions of law for immediate appellate review prior to a costly and lengthy damages trial that would be a waste of resources if the liability verdict is ultimately set aside.
In this motion, the Bank asks the Court to certify the following issues for appellate review:
- Whether the sanctions order – which allowed the jury to infer that the Bank “knowingly” “provided financial services to Hamas” and “processed and distributed payments on behalf of the Saudi Committee to terrorists” and precluded the Bank from introducing evidence of its innocent state of mind in providing financial services outside of the United States – is contrary to law and requires a new trial.
- Whether failing to instruct the jury that plaintiffs must prove that the Bank’s conduct was a “but for” and “direct” cause of the terrorist attacks that gave rise to the plaintiffs’ injuries is contrary to law and requires a new trial.
- Whether instructing the jury that “a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B is itself an act of international terrorism” and “if you find that plaintiffs have proved” the Bank violated § 2339B, “you must find that plaintiffs have proved that defendant committed an act of international terrorism” was contrary to law and requires a new trial.
The plaintiffs will file their consolidated response to the Bank’s pending Rule 50 and Rule 59 motions as well as this motion for certification for interlocutory appeal no later than November 24, 2014. The Bank has until December 12, 2014 to file its reply brief.
In addition to the filing by Arab Bank, the Kingdom of Jordan filed a Motion for Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae in Support of Arab Bank as well as a proposed Amicus Curiae filing on November 5.
Read the Bank’s motion for certification for interlocutory appeal here.
Read the Kingdom of Jordan’s proposed Amicus Curiae filing here.