Nahl v. Jaoude
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
968 F.3d 173 (2020)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Jordanian businessman Ghazi Abu Nahl and his corporation, Nest Investments Holding Lebanon (collectively, Nahl) (plaintiffs) owned a 24 percent stake in the Lebanese Canadian Bank (LCB) (defendant). LCB was liquidated in 2011 after the United States identified it as a financial institution of money-laundering concern. The liquidation harmed the financial interests of LCB’s shareholders, including Nahl. Nahl sued LCB and its former managers (defendants) in a United States district court under the Alien Tort Statute, a jurisdictional statute allowing foreign nationals to pursue a tort claim in federal court if the alleged tort violates international law. Nahl alleged that the managers used LCB to facilitate a money-laundering system that benefited Hezbollah, an organization that used laundered funds to commit terrorist attacks on civilians. Nahl claimed that facilitating such a scheme violated an international-law prohibition against financing terrorism, giving the federal court jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute. The district court agreed and allowed Nahl’s complaint. The managers filed an interlocutory appeal to challenge the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the Alien Tort Statute was not applicable because there was no international law prohibiting nonstate actors from financing terrorism.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lynch, J.)
Concurrence (Walker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 918,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 1,000 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

