BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman
Case Overview
American victims of Hezbollah terrorist attacks sued BLOM Bank, a Lebanese financial institution, under the Anti-Terrorism Act, alleging the bank provided material support by processing dollar-denominated transactions for Hezbollah-affiliated customers through U.S. correspondent banks. The Supreme Court applied the aiding-and-abetting standard from Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, addressing whether general commercial banking services to a terrorist-affiliated customer base suffice for secondary ATA liability.
The Facts
Plaintiffs injured in Hezbollah rocket attacks in Lebanon brought civil ATA claims against BLOM Bank, alleging that processing dollar-clearing transactions for Hezbollah-associated customers through U.S. correspondent banking relationships constituted knowing and substantial assistance to the terrorist organization. The Second Circuit dismissed the claims, applying Taamneh's demanding standard for secondary liability. The Supreme Court addressed whether the lower court applied Taamneh correctly.
The Application
Under Taamneh's demanding standard, BLOM Bank's provision of routine correspondent banking services to Hezbollah-affiliated customers lacked the requisite conscious and culpable participation in the specific terrorist attacks that injured the plaintiffs. Although the bank knowingly processed transactions for customers associated with the terrorist organization, merely providing general commercial banking services does not establish the close nexus to a particular attack that Taamneh requires. The Court found that plaintiffs had not demonstrated how the bank's correspondent banking operations specifically facilitated the particular rocket attacks at issue, only that the bank serviced Hezbollah-associated customers generally. Accordingly, Taamneh's demanding standard was not satisfied, and the bank's conduct could not support secondary ATA liability.
The Conclusion
**BLOM Bank confirms that Taamneh's demanding standard governs ATA aiding-and-abetting claims against financial institutions and that general commercial banking services to terrorist-affiliated customers do not establish the conscious culpable participation in a specific attack that the statute requires.** The ruling substantially limits ATA civil liability for banks and is likely to result in dismissal of claims that rely on correspondent banking relationships rather than specific facilitation of particular attacks.
No circuit court data for this case.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support