Securing Justice for Victims of Terrorism: Inside $1 Billion Judgment Against Iran

John is joined by Michael Gottlieb, partner in the Washington D.C. office of Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, and Nicholas Reddick, partner in the San Francisco office of Wilkie Farr & Gallagher.  They discuss the landmark $1.1 billion judgment Michael and Nicholas obtained against the Islamic Republic of Iran, on behalf of U.S. service members and civilians harmed by Iran-backed terrorist groups and the legal framework for suing state sponsors of terrorism and private organizations that support them.  Claims against sovereign states are based upon the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).  FSIA claims require plaintiffs to prove that the foreign sovereign materially supported acts of terrorism, often through militia groups operating in conflict zones.  The process is complex and time-consuming.  Although Iran never appears to defend these cases, plaintiffs must still prove liability and damages with admissible evidence, often obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, military reports, and expert testimony.  Because such judgments are rarely enforceable against Iran’s frozen or inaccessible assets, successful plaintiffs must seek compensation through the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, which draws from congressional appropriations and settlements from unrelated sanctions violations.  Payments from the fund are made annually and prorated based on judgment size, but disbursements have been inconsistent.  Recent developments, including circuit court rulings and a pending Supreme Court case, may reshape key legal standards for FSIA claims, such as the requirement of an actual death for certain terrorism-related claims.  Several new legislative efforts seek to expand the cases that may be brought under the FSIA and increase the funds allocated for compensating victims.  Claims against private entities such as banks, contractors or companies that evaded sanctions rely upon the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA).  Many such cases are currently being litigated.  ATA claims require proof of the defendant’s material support and knowledge of terrorist outcomes.  The defendants in ATA cases are likely to appear to defend against the claims, but only after the plaintiffs navigate complex issues of jurisdiction and service of process.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn 
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Transcript

LAW DISRUPTED _TERRORISM LITIGATION_TRANSCRIPT

JOHN QUINN: [00:00:00] This is John Quinn and this is Law Disrupted. And today we're gonna be talking about litigation against terrorist litigation against parties that facilitate terrorism, uh, litigations against state sovereigns who back terrorism, who are implicated in terrorist act terrorist activities. It's a very interesting subject and these are very, very difficult.

Types of cases to pursue, but we're gonna be talking to two lawyers who have very successfully now pursued a claim against the Islamic Republic of Iran. To wit, they secured a judgment of over $1.1 billion against the against Iran in litigation brought on behalf of American Service members and civilians killed or wounded by Iran, back terrorist cells in Iraq.

We're talking with Michael Gottlieb and Nicholas Reddick. Law firm, and I assume you are both in New [00:01:00] York. No, 

MICHAEL GOTTLIEB: no, neither one of us is in New York. I, I'm, uh, in DC and Nick is in San Francisco. 

JOHN QUINN: Okay. So that was Michael Gottlieb. And, um, I think Wilkie is a New York firm, but of course they have offices everywhere.

Uh, Michael is in, uh, Washington and Nixon in San Francisco. So, before we get into, uh, the specifics of your case, could you help our, our audience understand generally the lay of the land where it comes to. These types of claims, claims against terrorists and parties and states that facilitate terrorism.

What, what, what types of statutes are there? What types of theories of recovery are there? Uh, you know, just generally what are, what are the legal claims in the basings for them? 

MICHAEL GOTTLIEB: Yeah, sure. And John, thanks for having us on to talk about this. Um.

Amazing [00:02:00] clients that we're able to work for and to pursue justice and accountability for against the perpetrators of international terrorism. So thank you for the opportunity. Um, Nick and I have been doing this work for many years now. Um, and uh, we do this work, um, for a variety of reasons, but.

These, uh, claims for victims of international terrorism, um, is a, it's a labor intensive process, but it's a really meaningful one because it's one that with the statutory tools that have been provided by Congress now, uh, there are real opportunities to provide meaningful compensation. To victims of international terrorism and the family members, uh, of service members who are killed or wounded in action.

Um, and there are sort of two primary routes that have been created by statute for, uh, for pursuing claims. One of them we think of as the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, uh, route of, [00:03:00] of claims against. Um, foreign sovereign, um, that that can be brought. And there's an entire structure that's been created by the Justice for United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act, or jasta.

Uh, and then there's another route, um, under the Anti-Terrorism Act, um, for pursuing claims against sort of these non sovereign, um, defendants. So, um, companies, individuals, entities. Facilitated or aided and embedded acts of international terrorism. Um, you know, I could just briefly describe that for the, and, and maybe Nick can talk more about the, um, contested cases or the a TA cases, but in the, in the cases against sovereigns, like, like the Islamic Republic of Iran, um, by which.

Against these sovereigns when the requirements of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act are met. Um, and you [00:04:00] pursue against those sovereigns in federal court, uh, on behalf of victims of terrorism, you have to establish a whole set. Criteria, uh, that showing that, uh, the actual injury took place, showing attribution to the particular terrorist organization, showing, um, that the appropriate state sponsors of terrorism have been, have been sued.

You have to go through the process of serving, uh, the defendants and then typically you get a default judgment enforcing.

That, uh, process of enforcement under the JTA process allows you to submit claims to this victims fund. The United States, um, victims of state sponsored terrorism fund that is administered by special master and funds are, are in that. And, uh, if you submit eligible claimants to the fund, then they begin to get compensated.

As more money is appropriated by [00:05:00] Congress or flows. Um, so it's.

Uh, individual claimants who are holders of those judgments and what are functionally mass tort actions submitting them into the victim's fund, and then the victim's fund provides for compensation. Um, there are other means of enforcing these judgments that are sort of outside of that process, but for most of these plaintiffs that are in these big actions against Iran.

JOHN QUINN: We've had exposure at our firm and looked at a number of terrorism related claims over the years, and we're involved in at least one now also against Iran. Uh, I've come to learn enough to know that these claims and pursuing these claims is not for the faint of heart. Uh, as you said, you tend to be very time intensive.

Uh, there are [00:06:00] many, many, uh, lawyers who have devoted years to these, these claims in the past. Um, and have, you know, at the end of the day have had nothing to show for it, nothing to show for their clients. So they are, are very, very difficult claims, but as, as I understand it, as recently with new legislation.

The idea of actually obtaining some relief and some recovery has become, uh, there's some, there's more reality to it. How does, this is, you say, this victims, um, uh, reimbursement act or whatever it's called, recovery fund, that's funded by Congress as well as, uh, judgments that are liquidated. Tell us about how that works, 

MICHAEL GOTTLIEB: Nick.

NICK REDDICK: Fund that was set up for nine 11 victims. So, you know, after nine 11, Congress appropriated, uh, and set up a fund to help compensate those injured in nine 11 [00:07:00] and thereafter. You know, it worked pretty well, uh, in terms of getting, you know, some compensation into.

Where victims of state sponsored terrorism that were injured in other attacks around the world could also get compensated. And initially, you know, they dumped a pot of money in the fund and they also set up a structure so that when there are cases involving, for example, sanctions violations. So, you know, one of the big ones recently was, uh, a settlement that Binance made with the United States government involving certain sanctions violations.

There is a mechanism for the special master of this fund to basically grab some of that money, put it into the fund. Half of it still goes to.[00:08:00] 

Of international terrorism. And what happens then is at the end of every year, this, uh, special master that is, you know, based out of the Justice Department will look at the total amount of money, will look at the total number of victims that have been accepted into the fund, and then authorize an annual payment money in there some years there.

There. It is sort of, you know, the, the biggest, one of the biggest issues in these cases and why, you know, lawyers have devoted many, many years without really seeing much is that, for example, if you're suing a run and you get a judgment, and let's say this fund didn't exist. Well, how do you collect on that judgment, you know.[00:09:00] 

Designated a state sponsor of terrorism for many decades now, you know, virtually all of their assets have in the US have dried up. You know, they've been seized by the government, they've been seized by other litigants, and so it, it is, it is very difficult for any litigator to try to enforce the Iran.

This type of action under the Foreign Sovereigns Immunities Act is not one that many international partners appreciate or recognize. Right? So you can't even go to, say, for example, you know of France and say, Hey, you know, there's a, there's Iranian assets in France. We'd like to attach this judgment because.

It, it basically leaves this fund as the sole source of [00:10:00] recovery, and without it, you would have all these victims of terrorism with valid judgments from, you know, US district courts with, you know, basically no ability to recover. So, you know, it, it's an imperfect system. It, it takes a long time to get your clients into the

whats. You know, at least it's sort of at the end of the day, you know, after several years and, and we're sort of just getting to experience this for some of our clients now you can get some, some real meaningful recovery. You know, our clients this year, you know, received anywhere between 50 and 150.

Veterans and family members of veterans, many of them that makes a very big difference in their lives. Um, and you know, and our hope is they'll, they'll get a lot more over time. But, [00:11:00] you know, it is sort of the way that that victims of terrorism can recover. 

JOHN QUINN: Are, are you always looking, are these always default judgements?

Does this as sovereign ever show up and actually contest the merits? 

MICHAEL GOTTLIEB: Iran doesn't, I mean there are, there are other sovereigns that, that certainly do show up to litigate, um, terrorism claims. And, you know, you've seen some litigation, um, involving I think the Saudis, um, where the, the, there have been contested cases.

Um, but for all of these cases against Iran, these are default.

Going through the process of effectuating service, litigating the cases, and then putting them into the fund. And, you know, just one thing to add to what Nick, uh, was talking about with the fund that, you know, is just helpful perspective. I mean, through its history, the fund has now paid out over $4 billion, um, in, in claims.[00:12:00] 

Um, that's been five of payments and.

Um, now.

A significant payment that, um, the fund has announced in, in excess of probably $2 billion, um, that will get paid out to, to claimants. So there really is some meaningful money available, um, to the plaintiffs that can get into this fund. But the timing is, is so critical and the reason that we've been more focused.

You never know when that will be. You know, when one payment cycle will be the last you see for several years and then you can just be waiting for two or three years before, uh, Congress has more money to pay out. 

JOHN QUINN: What is the process of uh, getting a [00:13:00] judgment? I mean, a lot of litigators probably think well default judgment, the other side doesn't show up.

That's pretty easy. You submit an affidavit, you know, here are my, his, here are my damages, and, and the judge just rubber stamps at it. I gather from what you said, that's not exactly what happens here. 

MICHAEL GOTTLIEB: Yeah. You know, it's interesting when we started doing this work and looked around at other examples in the field of people that were doing it, I mean, typically these were, these were trials.

People were doing trials. So people were having these, you know, one side, um, default judgment hearings where they would.

And courts seem to be taking very seriously their obligations to, um, you know, hear the evidence and establish the facts necessary to support what were pretty significant, you know, large judgements that people were requesting. Um, and we at least made the decision early on. We started, you know, working on these cases in.[00:14:00] 

We made the decision to try to figure out what's the, what's the fastest way to get from A to Z here? What, because our, our, our clients, we knew that the way they were gonna get compensated was by getting them into the victim's fund. And we knew that you, you could miss a payment cycle if you were unlucky, you know, by a few weeks or by, if you.

Not feel need.

Reports address the subject of attribution. So what, what organizations are responsible for various attacks that are taking place on Battlefield? Um, uh, you know, the attribution [00:15:00] experts work was so far as we were concerned, airtight, um, so that the court would really not have any questions that it couldn't.

Advance of a hearing and then after a hearing for the submit for the, for publishing an opinion after that. And that's worked really well, we think, for our clients, um, proceeding in that way. And it's becoming more typical now, I think, to, to, um, really try to structure these to avoid. Hearing, which, you know, is our instinct as trial lawyers is to want that hearing and want the opportunity to go into the courtroom and prove our case and give our clients their moment, um, in, in court.

Uh, but we have to suppress that instinct quite a bit in order to achieve efficiency and speed here to make sure they, they get paid, um, uh, out as quickly as possible. Yeah.[00:16:00] 

NICK REDDICK: So you, your listeners, understand why this may be different than a typical default action. You know, because typically you sue a party if they don't show up, the court can rely on the allegations and the complaint. It's a pretty easy process. You do have to substantiate, you know, damages, but it, it's large, you know, can largely be a rubber stand in the foreign sovereign Act context.

That's not the case.

Affirmed.

Essentially by a preponderance of the evidence. So even though there's not an opponent on the other side, litigating against you, the court steps into that role. In a way it has to determine whether you've actually satisfied your claim and including 

JOHN QUINN: liability. Including liability. Is this a, a function of [00:17:00] the, the language of the Sovereign Immunities Act itself, it requires that you do this.

That's right. That's 

NICK REDDICK: right. And.

To prove li you know, damages is, you know, largely relying on your clients. Uh, and, you know, thankfully they're, you know, often very good at and, and, and thorough at describing the damages they've suffered. But for liability, you know, we don't have an opposing party. We can go get d.

Where our clients were injured. Even more complicated is that these cases are not allowed to be brought as class actions. So you have, for every client you have, you have to prove that Iran somehow materially supported that specific attack. And you can't get discovery from Iran. So you [00:18:00] know things, you know, one, sometimes your clients.

Evidence that they've obtained through, you know, if it's a loved one who was killed, other service members that were served with them, uh, and can serve as witnesses. Um, sometimes clients were given, you know, casualty reports or other evidence from the government, but in most cases we actually have to go to the government, the US government and try to evidence that way.

So you freedom.

You know, responded to, or you try to go through the court and, you know, get permission to serve third party subpoenas on government agencies, and you're trying to look for evidence that would prove that Iran had some involvement. And often that's done through identifying who the.

During the Iraq war, Iraq war, [00:19:00] you know, Iraq after the first wave where, um, US troops ousted Saddam Hussein's regime, pretty much most of the deaths and injuries that, that were happening in the war, you know, post 2004, even in 2003, were caused by militia groups who were not abiding by international law, and effectively were terrorists.

Who were using improvised explosives, other weapons to injure and maim American service members and civilians. And if you can identify what specific group carried out your specific attack, that often is enough to be able to tie Iran to it because.

Iran was pouring millions, if not billions of dollars into Iraq and Afghanistan during the [00:20:00] wars to support these militia groups. And so the, the, the real key is just to get enough evidence so that an expert feels confident enough to opine on who carried out the attack. Um, you know, for example, was it Iraq?

Uh, was, which is. And once you can do that, then you can feel pretty confident and the court can feel pretty confident that Iran had some hand in the attack. And so that, you know, you, you file the complaint. You know what we haven't even talked about is even just serving these countries can be difficult.

You know, Iran doesn't accept service via mail. Uh, there's all of sanctions that certain in.

Iran. So that can take six to nine months just to serve them. And then of course, at least as to Iran, they, they always default in these cases. But then you have to [00:21:00] build your body of evidence and submit it to the court so that they feel comfortable that you've established your claims, and then you gotta prove damages.

And, and that can be a timely process, especially for many clients who, you know.

Easily able to access and talk about these types of attacks. You know, these are the most painful, um, experiences in many people's lives. And so it takes time for them to be able to really put onto paper and, and, and show the court and explain to the court and justify to the court, um, what amount of damages they should get.

So that's kind why it takes so long from start. And then once you have that, you can get into the fund and, and hopefully get some payment over time. 

JOHN QUINN: And that's really fascinating. Is, is the US military cooperative in, in uh, helping to tell the story about the specific incident? What happened? [00:22:00] 

NICK REDDICK: Yeah. So, you know, largely yes.

The agencies that we seek this information from are largely cooperative with. And, you know, we, we've sort of, uh, built good relationships with various folks in the various divisions of the military that we need to access. Um, and, and often, or one thing we benefit from is that in, for example, in Iraq, whenever there was a service member who was killed in an attack, there typically was some sort of after.

It gives a pretty good idea of what, at least the army or, or Marines or whoever's thought happened. And so we can usually use that to piece together, you know, who carried out the attack. Um, so we, we use these, you know, there are, you know, um, real time signal messages, uh, that are, are blasted out [00:23:00] after these types of attacks.

There are af after action reports that are done. Investigations. Sometimes these claim responsibility for. The other thing that we do is there are certain weapons that were used in Iraq and Afghanistan that have signatures that can very directly tie Iran to the attack. So, you know, many service members who were killed in Iraq were killed as a result of a spec, a special type of IED, improvised explosive device.

That was pretty advanced, uh, and sort of has all the hallmarks of Iranian involvement, you know, a specific type of metal built in a certain type of way that was devastating in terms of the, the damage it could inflict on, uh, like a hum or, you know, any type of military vehicle. And so we'll often see evidence of this type of weapon when we're going all.

And that can tell a [00:24:00] story about why we know and are confident that Iran had some hand in the attack. 

MICHAEL GOTTLIEB: I'll say, uh, just to add to what Nick said, while, while we do have good relationships and it helps in that respect that you know that Nick is a veteran who served and um, and we have many team members both within our team.

We FO officers and that still does mean, um, often suing the government and having to take on subsidiary FO litigation. So we have, you know, I think Nick and I have done six of these Iran FSIA cases together. Um, some of them concluded, some of them still ongoing, one of.

Because if, in our experience, if you don't initiate litigation for some of these entities, you just wind up [00:25:00] waiting for years and we just don't have the luxury of that time. So we have to initiate foil litigation to get access to some of these reports and um, you know, that's a fairly routine process, but it's like all of this labor intensive and, uh, and takes up more time and, and resources.

JOHN QUINN: Once you get a judgment, uh, and I guess you submit it to this, uh, master, whoever runs this fund, how is the money allocated? Is, are they sort of first in time or is it prorated in some, uh, on some basis? Or how is it decided who, what victim to receive how much money? 

NICK REDDICK: Yeah. They have a somewhat complicated formula that they thankfully, are very transparent about.

They do post all of this information on their website. They submit an annual report to Congress explaining what they're doing, but essentially they look at the pot of money. Let's say they have a billion dollars. They look at the number of victims who've been accepted into the fund by a certain date, [00:26:00] and they figure out a pro-rata amount that they can pay each victim based on their judgment size.

So, you know, if someone has a 10. 2% of that. And likewise, if someone had a million dollars, they would get 2% of that. So each year they'll do that math. And there are some, you know, intricacies in that they do try to, for example, once someone's been paid a decent portion of their judgment, they kind of slow down payments for them to allow others to catch up.

So there, there are mechanisms to try to make it as, but it's typically just. Of every judgment in the fund, can they pay that year? And then that's how they 

JOHN QUINN: calculate it. Alright, so we've been talking about claims against sovereigns, and I know that that's what we're here to talk about, the, the judgments that you got against, uh, Iran.

But you mentioned there's a whole different body of law and practice in this area under, you know, contested cases [00:27:00] against private parties under the Anti-Terrorism Act. I know there have been a number of cases brought over the years. Against banks, for example, that supposedly facilitated funding of terrorist organizations.

Can you give us a little bit of the lay of the land, the legal lay of the land for those types of cases? 

NICK REDDICK: Yeah, that's exactly right. So if you're not gonna sue a foreign sovereign, you're gonna look to, you know, private entities.

A number of years. You know, basically since 2016 when Congress amended the Anti-Terrorism Act, there's been a mechanism for litigants to try to find entities that, you know, are aren't bad actors. Uh, and so, you know, Congress says that you know, any, any entity that materially supports terrorism abroad, including aiding and abetting terrorism, be liable.

Um.[00:28:00] 

Certain entities that, you know, we allege were doing just this. And, and you're right, that many of the early cases were against banks. I think that's now expanded. So, you know, there are now lawsuits against, um, security contractors, uh, you know, companies that were, um, supposedly building schools in Afghanistan.

That were, um, paying protection payments to the Taliban. Um, you know, there are companies that were knowingly violating US sanctions to try to harm Iran with certain equipment that would, that they would then pass on to terrorist groups. So yeah, it's kind of looking to companies that, you know, and there is.

It's not like you can just sue anyone that had, you know, any involvement in, in the wars. You find companies that, you know, really rise to a [00:29:00] level, uh, that you know, you can feel comfortable alleging that they actually knew where that money was going and, and that they had some culpability as a result 

JOHN QUINN: in terms of service and jurisdiction alike are, are those types of claims?

Pretty much like any other civil litigation basically. 

MICHAEL GOTTLIEB: Yeah, I would think of this as its own sort of, you know, species of mass tort actions. I mean, these are these similar to the FSIA cases, these cases are not brought as class actions. So you, these are, these are mass tort cases that are being brought against companies, entities, individuals that participated in providing.

Terrorism. And so, um, you, you, you have some of the issues with service and jurisdiction. If you have companies that are foreign corporations, for example. All of the issues that typically [00:30:00] arise with suing foreign corporation come into play. Uh, there are some cases that have been brought against, uh, domestic corporations, us.

Of, um, of defendants that have been sued in, in these different a TA actions. Um, and, um, the, the, the, the field has been pretty dynamic because the statute, um, has been amended several times, but really since these cases started, um, popping up and, uh, so.

In one way or the other. Uh, and, um, a lot of litigation going on about, um, the limits around, um, aiding and abetting or providing material support to terrorism and how much you have to be able to show or prove. Uh, a company or an individual did or knew, um, with respect to the particular act of [00:31:00] international terrorism, uh, including a case that went up to the Supreme Court a couple terms ago, um, involving Twitter, that, um, uh, that, that, that in some ways, um, you know, reshaped how people were thinking about some of this litigation.

So. It's been a very active space. There are many, many active cases against, against banks, against logistics and defense contractors against, um, the tech companies for, for some of this litigation, um, and against foreign, uh, companies that, um, are what we would consider to be in sort of highly regulated spaces or highly regulated areas where.

The potential for sanctions violations or the potential for, um, other type of regulatory violations that you would think of as potentially giving rise to terrorism claims. 

JOHN QUINN: Let's talk about, um, the cases that you've been involved in that, um, brought us to this podcast. I read about the, uh, judgment over a billion dollar judgment you got against Iran.

How did you get [00:32:00] involved in this? Who were your clients? 

MICHAEL GOTTLIEB: So we first got involved in representing, um, these are typically gold star families, so, uh, family members of us, service members that were killed or wounded, um, uh, in Iraq. Um, we have some other cases involving pools of, of clients wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Um, and we got involved, um.

Long time friend of mine, uh, from, uh, from college, uh, who basically specializes in this, uh, in this line of work. What, what's the name of the firm? Uh, Pacino, PLLC. And, um, Ryan Sino is, um, my former college debate partner's name. Uh, and so, uh, he approached, um, US years and.[00:33:00] 

Helping to litigate a significant number of these cases and claims both in the FS I and A space. Um, and we jumped at the opportunity, um, to be able to work on behalf of Goldstar families. Um, you know, as I mentioned before, Nick, Nick is.

And we all believe that, um, this sort of system that Congress has created, um, to provide accountability and potential compensation for victims of international terrorism is a really important way that we can help serve members of the military, um, veterans and their families. Um, and.

Wounded in combat. And so it's, it's, it really is a privilege to be able to do this kind of [00:34:00] work. We see it as impact litigation, um, that is really meaningful to these clients. So, so that's how we, we got the opportunity for this case. And, you know, Nick, I don't know if you wanna talk a little bit about, um, the action itself.

NICK REDDICK: Yeah. John, you interrupt.

It involves about 600 plaintiffs. The way these cases work, because they're masked courts, you can't just submit a motion for 600 plaintiffs, you know, that would be thousands and thousands of pages. And so the courts, especially in DC, they've developed a bellwether process where, you know, you pick a. You submit all of the evidence to show that Iran is liable for those attacks.

And then you also show why certain of those plaintiffs are eligible for damages, and the court will look at that, [00:35:00] um, provide a, you know, a detailed written opinion that can then be used as the framework for the rest of the plaintiffs received.

It was about 45 plaintiffs that Iran was liable for all of the attacks that, um, injured those plaintiffs. And they included, you know, wounded inaction veterans, as well as family members who lost loved ones in Iraq. And then the court appointed a special master to determine the appropriate amount of damages.

You know, one interesting thing is that because.

There's now developed, uh, it, it, it's kind of tragic, but a framework for determining damages that, you know, courts are really interested in making sure that, um, damage awards are consistent across different types of plaintiffs. And so now the courts kind of have this framework [00:36:00] where, you know, a certain type of plaintiff would be eligible for a certain amount damage on circumstances.

Parents, uh, who lost their, their child in Iraq, they would typically get $5 million. Again, subject, you know, up or down to adjustments based on those circumstances. So, you know, we're trying to argue to the court why our client should either get, you know, what we call the baseline amount, or in special circumstances should actually get more than the baseline amount.

Um, and so we opinion on liability. And then we submitted all the information to a special master. We then recommended to the judge a certain amount of damages for each plaintiff, and then the judge approved the special master's recommendation and then issued the final judgments, which allow us then to submit all of those clients into the victim's fund for next year.[00:37:00] 

JOHN QUINN: So Michael, you talked about how, um, you've tried to come up with a way of expediting the process, uh, even these default judgment cases. How long did this take beginning to end from the time of, uh, filing the claim to actually getting the judgment? 

MICHAEL GOTTLIEB: So we filed Martino in, um, July of.

Uh, so then we fi, I think that was our first complaint. We filed an amended complaint a few months later, um, in, you know, in the fall. And, uh, uh, so we had our first amendment amended complaint on file, you know, by November of 2021. Um, and so you can, you can play out the timeline from there of how long it us and throughout process, um, we.

Engaged in FO litigation and, you know, document requests. We were engaged in attempts to subpoena certain government. The whole process that Nick and I [00:38:00] talked about before, um, sort of began around that time, uh, while we were trying to serve, uh, the complaint, which as Nick mentioned, is a lengthy process.

We had initiated FO litigation, we had initiated expert work. We. Objective of, you know, once we've got a served complaint and once we've got enough of the information, um, about the various attacks that, um, that really make up the entire plaintiff group, we'd be ready to go with a motion for default judgment.

And so, you know, you can, you can see that that's a process that that can take about four to five year, almost five years in this case. Uh, it's about, it's for less than five years to getting the judgment. Um, but, but in terms of when payments first start rolling in, I think that's about right. Uh, for, for payments from the time of filing to the time of seeing the first payments for, uh, groups of [00:39:00] plaintiffs in the, in the, um, in the mass action.

And as you know, as mentioned, the bellwether group is still remain. That are going through the process now of going before special masters, having their damages awards recommended and confirmed. And so that will be ongoing, you know, into, definitely into what is, is the next payment cycle, um, for the victim's fund.

So it's, it's, it's not done yet, um, but it. Um, worked very hard to be able to, uh, get in front of, um, um, our judge as quickly as possible to, to get the bellwether decision and, and start the process of getting damages awards in place. 

JOHN QUINN: What are some of the, uh, novel issues or developing areas of the law or even, uh, proposed legislation in Congress affecting this, this practice area?

NICK REDDICK: Yeah, I. [00:40:00] There's interesting litigation going on in the District of Columbia and other districts around a few issues. Um, one is the what, what constitutes an act of terrorism that qualifies? So in the statute, you know, it lists, there's a laundry list of different types of conduct that would strip a foreign sovereign of immunity.

The main one that, uh, is, gets litigated in these types of cases is called an extrajudicial killing. So, you know, basically any attack where there was some killing, uh, that was outside of the formal judicial system of the country that the attack occurred in. And, um.

Someone had to actually be killed to constitute an extrajudicial killing. So for [00:41:00] several years there were judges that were be, were split on this issue. Some judges said, you know, yes, there actually has to have been a successful killing for it to constitute an extrajudicial killing that would then strip the nation of immunity.

And uh, many judges found.

An extrajudicial killing then that satisfied the law. And that issue had eventually worked its way up to the DC circuit. And very recently the DC circuit ruled that there actually does, in fact have to be a death. So, you know, certain, um, plaintiffs that were injured, uh, in an attack where no one died, uh, aren't gonna be.

That decision is actually, uh, pending before the Supreme Court. Uh, there was a cert petition late last year that I think they're just waiting on the Solicitor [00:42:00] General's views on, so we'll see how that develops. But even within the definition of extrajudicial killing, there's a lot of interesting nuance about how you might show that someone in fact, died.

If a suicide attacker, you know, blew themself up in a crowd, and let's say thankfully none of the victims died, but obviously the suicide attacker died. Can that qualify as an extra judicial killing? Many judges are saying yes. If, for example, there was an attack where no one died in that moment, but let's say several years later, a.

Develop law, just sort of defining who gets to receive these types of judgements. Um, another interesting area is around, um, children. So, you know, there are cases where, [00:43:00] um, you know, a veteran is, is killed in an attack, a terrorist attack. And you know, let's say their, their spouse was pregnant. Uh, would the in utero child qualify for judgements under the act?

Um, or would a, a child born after the, uh, attack as a result of, uh, you know, uh, uh, in vitro fertilization, would they have an opportunity to.

There's sort of tweaks to the law. You know, there's been an effort to push Congress to expand, uh, the definition of extrajudicial killing as a result of this DC Circuit opinion. But I think a lot of the focus has been on just trying to get a more steady, reliable stream of money into the fund. I think that's been the [00:44:00] biggest frustration among victims is that, you know.

What value is that judgment? Uh, and, and there was a stretch where for about three years, the victims fund didn't pay out a single penny. Uh, and so there's been an effort in Congress, a bipartisan effort to try to change that and to try to identify a steadier stream of money so that, you know.

Some compensation. So there, there's a lot of work being done by the law firms and partners that are involved in these types of cases to try to work with Congress to make those changes. 

JOHN QUINN: Well, gentlemen, thank you very much. This has been, uh, very interesting. Uh, uh, this is a very, uh, important, uh, practice area.

We, [00:45:00] uh, I applaud you for your work and, and very much appreciate the work that you've done. It's obviously has some real. Challenges in bringing these terrorist claims and, and congratulations on the, on the results that you've been able to achieve so far. 

MICHAEL GOTTLIEB: Thanks. 

JOHN QUINN: This is John Quinn. We've been speaking with Nicholas Reddick and Michael Gottlieb of the Wilkee Foreign Gallagher Law Firm about litigation relating to injuries caused by terrorists and the judgment that they recently obtained against the Islamic Republic of Iran for over $1.1 billion.

This is John Quinn, and this has been law disrupted.

Thank you for listening to Law Disruptive with me, John Quinn. If you enjoyed the show, please subscribe and leave a rating and review on your chosen podcast app to stay up to date with the latest episodes. You can sign up for email alerts at our website, law Hype Disruptive [00:46:00] fm, or follow me on X at JB Q Law.

Or at Quin Emanuel. Thank you for tuning in.