Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 11-13-2024

Case Style:

Deborah D. Peterson, et al. v. Bank Markazi, AKA Central Bank of Iran, et al.

Case Number:

Judge:

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: James P. Bonner, et al.

Defendant's Attorney: Robert K. Kry, et al.

Description:


New York, New York personal injury lawyers represent the Plaintiffs seeking to collect a judgement.



the Plaintiffs’
efforts to enforce multi-billion-dollar judgments that they hold against the
Islamic Republic of Iran based on Iran’s involvement in the 1983 bombing of the
U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. In this action, they seek turnover to
them of the contents of an account with Clearstream Banking, a Luxembourg-
based financial institution: a $1.68 billion right to payment representing the
principal and interest of bond investments that Clearstream made in New York
on behalf of Bank Markazi, Iran’s central bank. The United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (Loretta A. Preska, Judge), relying in part
on 22 U.S.C. § 8772—which makes certain assets available to satisfy the Plaintiffs’
judgments against Iran—granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs
and issued an order directing Clearstream and Bank Markazi to turn the contents
of the Luxembourg account over to the Plaintiffs in New York. Clearstream and
Bank Markazi appealed.

Outcome: Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that (1) the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ turnover claim against Bank
Markazi; (2) the district court may exercise personal jurisdiction over
Clearstream; (3) Clearstream’s challenge to the constitutionality of 22 U.S.C. §
8772 fails; and (4) the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs when it declined to apply state law to determine the ownership of the assets sought by the Plaintiffs. We therefore AFFIRM in part and VACATE in part the district court's order and judgment and REMAND for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer
Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case
Subject:
County:
State: