Archives

Case of the Day: Weinstein v. Iran

The internet: a series of tubes

The case of the day is Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran (D.C. Cir. 2016). The plaintiffs were victims of terrorist attacks who held unsatisfied judgments against Iran, North Korea, and Syria. They sought to attach “Internet data” managed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), namely the top-level domains for Iran (.ir), North Korean (.kp), and Syria (.sy). In other words, the plaintiffs wanted to assume control of the defendant countries’ top-level domains in partial satisfaction of the judgments.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Weinstein v. Iran

Case of the Day: Owens v. Sudan

Bombing of the US embassy in Kenya
The bombing of the US embassy in Kenya. Credit: FBI

The case of the day is Owens v. Republic of Sudan (D.D.C. 2015). James Owen and the other plaintiffs were victims of the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa. Owens had a default judgment against the Republic of Sudan and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Under the FSIA, a default judgment has to be sent to the foreign state using one of the FSIA methods of service before the plaintiff can execute on the judgment. 1 The plaintiffs sought an order determining that a reasonable amount of time had passed and that they had properly given the required notice of the judgment.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Owens v. Sudan

Notes:

  1. As the judge held, this requirement applies even in state-sponsored terrorism cases, notwithstanding Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 755 F.3d 568, 575 (7th Cir. 2014), a case to the contrary.

Case of the Day: Pine Top Receivables v. Banco de Seguros del Estado

The case of the day is Pine Top Receivables of Illinois, LLC v. Banco de Seguros del Estado (7th Cir. 2014). Pine Top Insurance Company claimed it was owed more than $2 million by Banco de Seguros del Estado, an instrumentality of the Uruguayan government, under reinsurance contracts. When Pine Top failed, its claims against the bank ultimately ended up in the hands of Pine Top Receivables, which sued to collect. Under Illinois law, because the bank was not authorized to carry out an insurance business in the state, it had to post security when it served its answer to the complaint. It failed to do so, and Pine Top sought to strike the answer. The bank opposed the motion to strike on the ground that the security requirement was an attachment forbidden by the FSIA.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Pine Top Receivables v. Banco de Seguros del Estado