September 19, 2003 - Can 9/11 victims pursue 1 trillion lawsuit against alleged terrorist backers?

---

More than 2,000 victims and victims' representatives sued nearly 200 banks, charities and individuals who allegedly financed and conspired with al Qaeda terrorists to cause the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The issue before the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia was whether the victims and their representatives had standing bring a RICO action.

The victims claimed that the defendants schemed to aid and abet the terrorists who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In addition to alleging RICO Act violations, the victims asserted claims of conspiracy, wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The victims and families claimed economic and professional injuries as a result of their personal injuries or the personal injuries of their deceased relatives.

Several of the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the victims lacked standing to assert a RICO claim. Specifically, they asserted that RICO actions are limited to cases involving damages to a plaintiff's business or property and that the financial injuries alleged by the victims were indirect results of direct personal injuries and, as a result, could not form the basis for an action under RICO.

Did the terrorist attack victims' alleged injuries give them grounds to sue under RICO?

A. Yes. Personal injuries may be business injuries because the RICO Act is a remedial statute and its standing requirements are to be construed liberally.

B. No. The victims lacked standing because they did not allege injuries to either their businesses or property.

C. Yes. Personal injuries that deprive relatives of income from their family members' businesses or professions qualify as a business injury under RICO.

D. No. Because the defendants' alleged acts of financing terrorists did not directly lead to the victims' injuries, the victims lacked standing.

How the court ruled: B.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson held that the victims did not plead a proper injury and lacked standing to assert a RICO claim. (Burnett, et al. v. Al Baraka Investment and Development Corp., et al., No. 02-1616 (D.D.C. 07/25/03).)

The court concluded that the "business or property" language of the act could not encompass personal injuries. Judge Robertson noted that several Circuit Courts have rejected claims that the inability to derive income from a relative's business as the result of a personal injury constituted a business injury under RICO.

Even a liberal construction of the RICO Act could not "stretch the phrase 'injured in his business or property' far enough to include personal injury," the court determined. Judge Robertson also pointed out that U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Clayton Act's "business and property" language, which is identical to that of the RICO Act, to "exclude personal injuries suffered."

The Pistotnik Law Offices handles all personal injury cases including, but not limited to:Large truck accidents, car accidents, injury cases, injury victims, reckless driving, negligence, torts, car accident victims, damages, wrongful death, vehicle accidents, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcycle accidents, third party lawsuits, damaged cars, insurance settlements, auto accidents, medical bills, permanent injury, rear-end collisions, liability insurance, property damage, minor injuries, insurance coverage, truck accident, tractor-trailer accidents, paralysis, paralyzed, eaglemed, Lifeflight, Wesley Medical Center, Via Christi, St. Francis hospital.

$9 Millionview

$4.1 Millionview

$2.4 Millionview

$1.6 Millionview

$1.3 Millionview

$1.3 Millionview

$1 Millionview

Site Map