http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1da17e41-6ea2-4152-a0ea-bf95145df016/1/doc/14-1963_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1da17e41-6ea2-4152-a0ea-bf95145df016/1/hilite/
This case involves three sets of laws:
1 - FSIA - Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”)0
2 - TRIA - Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (“TRIA”)
3 - IEEPA - International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”)
In brief, the court ruled that the owners of the building was NOT Iran, and thus the Plaintiff's who have Judgments against Iran can NOT force the building to be sold to pay off their judgments. This is the FSIA claim and thus that claim was dismissed.
On the other hand, the owners of the building MAY be subject to Executive Orders that BLOCKS the movement of anything that MAY be owned by an Iranian official out of the US. The court also ruled such an issue can NOT be done on a Summary Judgement motion, but only after a full hearing and remanded the case for such a hearing.
Because Defendants‐Appellants are neither foreign sovereigns nor agencies or instrumentalities thereof under the FSIA, we conclude that Plaintiffs could not pursue execution, much less be awarded summary judgment, under that statute. While Defendants‐Appellants’ status as agencies or instrumentalities of a declared terrorist entity under the TRIA is not foreclosed as a matter of law, we identify questions of fact as to that status, as well as whether Defendants‐Appellants’ properties are “blocked assets” under the TRIA, which cannot be decided as a matter of law. We therefore VACATE the judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In March 1995—six years after 650 Fifth Ave. Co.’s formation—President Clinton issued a series of Executive Orders pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), formally declaring the Government of Iran a threat to this nation’s security and imposing broad financial sanctions. .....
We conclude that Defendants in this case do not equate to the “foreign state” of Iran for purposes of the FSIA or the TRIA. We further conclude that Defendants cannot be deemed “agencies or instrumentalities” of Iran under the FSIA, but that Defendants’ status as “agencies or instrumentalities” of Iran under the TRIA and their properties’ status as “blocked assets” under that statute is not foreclosed as a matter of law. Nevertheless, we identify questions of fact that prevent either of these TRIA questions from being decided on summary judgment. Accordingly, we vacate the summary judgment award in favor of Plaintiffs and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
The TRIA has a wider area of who it covers then the FSIA:
In addition to conferring authority on the President to regulate and prohibit transactions to deal with threats to this nation’s security, foreign policy, or economy, the IEEPA authorizes the President to block property to address such threats. See 50 U.S.C. § 1702. In 2012, President Obama, acting pursuant to the authority conferred on him under the IEEPA, issued Executive Order 13,599 “to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957 of March 15, 1995, particularly in light of the deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks to conceal transactions of sanctioned parties.” .....
As relevant here, that Order states that “all property and interests in property of the Government of Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran, that are in the United States . . . are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.” Id. (emphasis added); see 31 C.F.R. § 560.211 (implementing blocking order). The Order defines “Government of Iran” to mean the “Government of Iran, any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof . . . and any person owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, the Government of Iran.”
In simple terms to obtain the property under the FSIA, an defendant must show the property is the property of the government of Iran or the owner and the Iranian Government are for all practical purposes one and the same. The Court ruled the evidence in this case can NOT support such a finding of fact and entered a Summary Judgement overturning any award to the Claimants under the FSIA.
On the other hand the Government's ability to "Block" assets of Iran is NOT restricted to direct ownership by the Government of Iran but also anyone who is "any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof . . . and any person owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, the Government of Iran". I.e more then just the Government of Iran, but anyone who is acting for that government OR any other form of government in Iran. That is a much broader base and given the facts in this case an issue of fact that can only be decided after a full hearing.
Thus, there will be a hearing, but only if the Government can BLOCK any assets of the Defendant if it can be shown at trial the Defendant is a "Government of Iran, any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof . . . and any person owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, the Government of Iran".
= new reply since forum marked as read
