Daou v. BLC Bank, S.A.L.

43 Citing cases

  1. Elghossain v. Bank Audi S.A.L.

    21 Civ. 2162 (PGG) (BCM) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 29, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    (R&R (Dkt. No. 94) at 15) “As the Second Circuit explained in Daou[ v. BLC Bank, S.A.L., 42 F.4th 120 (2d Cir. 2022)], ‘[Banque du Liban], as the central bank of Lebanon, is an agency or instrumentality of the Lebanese state, and thus it is entitled to sovereign immunity unless one of the FSIA's statutory exceptions applies.'” (Id. at 15-16 (quoting Daou, 42 F.4th at 133))

  2. Kreit v. Byblos Bank S.A.L.

    22-cv-10751 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2023)

    . As has been reported in other cases, see, e.g., Daou v. BLC Bank, S.A.L., 42 F.4th 120 (2d Cir. 2022), in late 2019, Lebanese banks, including Defendant, experienced liquidity issues due to a political and financial crisis in Lebanon that began earlier that year.

  3. Raad v. Bank Audi S.A.L.

    1:20-cv-11101 (MKV) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    .See also Daou v. BC Bank, S.A.L., No. 20-cv-4438, 2021 WL 1338772, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (explaining that Lebanon's banks closed for a period of time in 2019 and subsequently imposed restrictions on withdrawals and transfers from Lebanese bank accounts to overseas accounts), aff'd, 42 F.4th 120 (2d Cir. 2022). The Second Circuit elaborated on the cause of the crisis in an opinion affirming the dismissal of a case similar to this case.

  4. Moussaoui v. Bank of Beirut & the Arab Countries

    22-cv-6137 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 14, 2023)

    In response to the crisis, “a number of restrictive measures have been adopted,” including limitations on the withdrawal of funds-especially withdrawals in foreign currency. Id.; see also Daou v. BC Bank, S.A.L., No. 20 Civ. 4438 (DLC), 2021 WL 1338772, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2021) (explaining that Lebanon's banks closed for a period of time in 2019 and subsequently imposed restrictions on withdrawals and transfers from Lebanese bank accounts to overseas accounts) aff'd 42 F.4th 120 (2d Cir. 2022). Specifically, BDL has restricted withdrawals and transfers of foreign currency abroad except in limited circumstances that are specifically authorized, including payments for the import of supplies, tuition payments, and medical emergencies.

  5. Schansman v. SBER Bank of Russ. PJSC

    19-cv-2985 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2024)

    As the Court explained with respect to VTB's motion for reconsideration, “[i]n evaluating defendant's original motion to dismiss, the Court carefully evaluated the facts alleged in the amended complaint as to each defendant and found that plaintiffs had articulated a prima facie case [of personal jurisdiction] against VTB.” June 21, 2023 Tr. 8:18-23. The Court reaffirmed its ruling that the allegations in the SAC establish jurisdiction over VTB under Second Circuit and New York precedent, including under Daou v. BLC Bank, S.A.L., 42 F.4th 120 (2d. Cir. 2022). Id. at 10:11- 21

  6. Style Stitch, Inc. v. The Avyan Grp.

    1:23-cv-10701 (MKV) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2024)

    ” Daou v. BLC Bank, S.A.L., 42 F.4th 120, 129 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc. v. Montana Bd. of Invs., 7 N.Y.3d 65, 71 (2006)). Notwithstanding, the “single act” must still allege a “substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted.

  7. Okolo v. Cross River State Gov't

    19 Civ. 5329 (VB) (AEK) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2023)

    (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2023) (quotation marks omitted); see Daou v. BLC Bank, S.A.L., 42 F.4th 120, 135 (2d Cir. 2022) (“the mere fact that a foreign state's commercial activity outside of the United States caused physical or financial injury to a United States citizen is not itself sufficient to constitute a direct effect in the United States” (quotation marks omitted)). If a plaintiff's location at the time of a financial loss were sufficient to establish a “direct effect” in that location within the meaning of the FSIA, jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns would be permitted “in practically every case in which a U.S. domiciliary claimed harm from the acts of a foreign sovereign, an outcome that would undermine the FSIA's background presumption of affording immunity to foreign states.” Aldossari ex rel. Aldossari v. Ripp, 49 F.4th 236, 255 (3d Cir. 2022); see Soudavar v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 67 Fed.Appx. 618, 619 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (“Although appellant was a legal resident of the United St

  8. Moussaoui v. Bank of Beirut & The Arab Countries

    No. 23-7332 (2d Cir. Oct. 30, 2024)

    In a nearly identical case where plaintiffs sued commercial banks in Lebanon for the failure to release USD deposits, we held that there was "no substantial connection" between the banks' use of correspondent accounts in New York and the plaintiffs' claims, "all of which turn[ed] on alleged measures taken by Lebanese banks in Lebanon to ensure that USD deposits remained in that country." Daou v. BLC Bank, S.A.L., 42 F.4th 120, 132 (2d Cir. 2022). The same is true here.

  9. Giana v. Shein Distribution Corp.

    24-CV-2599 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2024)

    Daou v. BLC Bank, S.A.L., 42 F.4th 120, 129 (2d Cir. 2022) .

  10. DF Ventures, LLC v. Aaron & Gianna, PLC

    22-cv-9586 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2024)   Cited 4 times

    Plaintiff's fraud claim arises from Defendants' transaction of business in New York. The connection between Defendants' New York contacts and Plaintiff's claim is not “merely coincidental,” Daou v. BLC Bank, S.A.L., 42 F.4th 120, 132 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Johnson v. Ward, 829 N.E.2d 1201, 1203 (N.Y. 2005)), or “tangential,” Sole Resort, 450 F.3d at 104. Those contacts form the “specific transaction underlying [the] claim,” “bringing about the injuries” of which Plaintiff complains.