Anti-Terrorism

One of our core practice areas involves high-stakes investigations and related litigation concerning the Anti-Terrorism Act, as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. We currently represent more than 4,000 Americans, including more than 1,000 Gold Star families, in ongoing terrorism-related claims relating to attacks committed by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Hezbollah, Kata’ib Hezbollah, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and/or ISIS.

Some of our current anti-terrorism matters include:

Atchley, et al. v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd., et al., No. 1:17-cv-02136 (D.D.C.), an ATA case against AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, GE Healthcare, Pfizer, and Roche, alleging that they paid bribes in the form of cash and free goods to Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM), an Iran-backed, Hezbollah-trained militant group that controlled the Iraqi Ministry of Health in post-Saddam Iraq. Our clients further allege that these corrupt payments provided material support to JAM, which financed and conducted attacks that killed or injured thousands of Americans serving and working in Iraq. We represent over 1,250 clients in this lawsuit.

Cabrera, et al. v. Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp., et al., No. 1:19-cv-3833 (D.D.C.), an ATA case against 10 multinational corporations that provided engineering, procurement, construction, security, telecom, and/or other such services in post-9/11 Afghanistan, alleging that they made protection payments to the Taliban (including its Haqqani Network). These corrupt payments provided material support to terrorist groups in Afghanistan, who used their funding to kill and injure thousands of Americans. We represent over 850 clients in this lawsuit.

Estate of Anne T. Smedinghoff, et al., v. Standard Chartered Bank, No. 1:23-cv-02865 (S.D.N.Y) and related cases, an ATA case in which our clients allege that Standard Chartered Bank provided key financial services to the primary manufacturer of precursor materials used by anti-American terrorists in Afghanistan to create improvised explosive devices (IEDs)—even after the bank was urged by the U.S. Government to stop doing so to save the lives of American servicemembers. We represent over 120 clients in these lawsuits.

Foley, et al. v. Lafarge S.A., et al., No. 1:23-cv-5691 (E.D.N.Y.) and related case, an ATA case against one of the world’s largest cement manufacturers, alleging that Lafarge bribed and partnered with ISIS and al-Nusrah Front terrorists to protect its operations and profits, an allegation that Lafarge has already been found criminally liable for. Our clients allege that Lafarge paid millions of dollars to terrorists, which aided the attacks that targeted Americans, and that Lafarge knew their conduct was illegal and went to great lengths to conceal it. We represent over 70 clients in these lawsuits.

Hughes, et al. v. Reza Zarrab and Halkbank, et al., No. 1:23-cv-06481 (S.D.N.Y.), an ATA case against a high-net-worth individual and one of the largest commercial banks in Türkiye, alleging that they systematically helped the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) and its affiliates—which were known fronts for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—finance terrorist operations by evading anti-terrorism sanctions designed to prevent the IRGC from accessing the proceeds of Iranian oil sales. Through a prolonged campaign of alleged deception, our clients allege Zarrab and Halkbank helped IRGC fronts obtain and deploy at least $20 billion—and by some estimates, as much as $100 billion—while the IRGC was providing critical financial and logistical support to anti-American terrorists worldwide. Our clients allege that defendants thus enabled the IRGC to supply money, weapons, training, technology, and safe haven to terrorists in Afghanistan and Syria, who used that support to attack Americans. We represent over 150 clients in this lawsuit.

King, et al., v. Habib Bank Ltd., No. 1:20-cv-04322 (S.D.N.Y.) and related cases, an ATA case against Pakistan’s largest commercial bank, Habib Bank Limited (HBL), that allegedly operated as the primary terrorist finance arm of Pakistan’s intelligence service, which notoriously supported the Taliban (including its Haqqani Network), al-Qaeda, and Lashkar-e-Taiba – the “al-Qaeda Terror Syndicate.” HBL allegedly knowingly provided accounts and facilitated essential transactions that allowed the Syndicate to obtain and move money to terrorists committing attacks on Americans in post-9/11 Afghanistan. We represent over 410 clients in these lawsuits.

Moses, et al. v. BNP Paribas S.A., No. 24-cv-4938 (S.D.N.Y.), an ATA case against BNP Paribas, a global financial institution, alleging that the bank knowingly provided illicit banking services to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its proxies, enabling terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Hezbollah, to finance and carry out attacks against Americans. The complaint asserts that BNP Paribas facilitated billions of dollars in transactions for IRGC-controlled entities, despite repeated warnings that such conduct would aid terrorist violence. BNP Paribas has already admitted to criminal violations of U.S. sanctions laws and agreed to pay nearly $9 billion in penalties.  We represent over 280 clients in this lawsuit.

Schmitz, et al. v. Ericsson Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-02317 (D.D.C.) and related case, an ATA case against Swedish telecommunications giant Ericsson and certain of its executives, who are alleged to have made protection payments to ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda-in-Iraq. Our clients’ claims are based in part on Ericsson’s admissions of its misconduct in Iraq and Ericsson’s internal investigation, which was leaked to the media. Defendants are also alleged to have intentionally obstructed vital U.S. government counterterrorism operations, including by repeatedly lying to the U.S. government and by facilitating the shutdown of cellular towers in Afghanistan at the Taliban’s direction. In doing so, our clients allege that Ericsson provided key “cover” and “concealment” to – and thereby logistical aid and support for—al-Qaeda’s, al-Qaeda-in-Iraq’s, and ISIS’s—fundraising rackets while these FTOs were killing and kidnapping Americans. We represent over 1,300 clients in these lawsuits.

Troell, et al. v. Binance Holdings Ltd., et al., No.: 1:24-cv-7136 (S.D.N.Y.), an ATA case against one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges and its former CEO, alleging the knowing facilitation of the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars in cryptocurrency to terrorist organizations, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda. The complaint asserts that Binance systematically flouted anti-money laundering and sanctions laws, enabling terrorist groups to finance attacks that killed and injured Americans. Binance and Zhao have already admitted to significant violations in U.S. enforcement actions, with Binance agreeing to pay over $4 billion in penalties and Zhao serving prison time. We represent over 530 clients in this lawsuit.

Zobay, et al., v. MTN Group Ltd., et al., No. 1:21-cv-03503 (E.D.N.Y.) and related cases, an ATA case against three foreign telecommunications companies—MTN Group (South Africa), ZTE Corp. (China), and Huawei Co. (China)—for aiding Iranian terrorist proxies.  Defendants allegedly engaged in illicit, terrorism-sanctions-busting transactions with known IRGC fronts to boost their profits. Our clients allege that those transactions supported terrorism by funding, arming, and logistically supporting a terrorist campaign that stretched for more than a decade, killing and injuring thousands of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. We represent over 330 clients in these lawsuits.

In the coming months, we anticipate filing additional lawsuits on behalf of other American victims of state sponsored terrorism, torture, or hostage-taking.

You are advised that not all client results are included and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.