September 22, 2014 by Robert Tharp at 4:40:00 pm
More than a few called Dallas attorney Mark Werbner quixotic when he first posed a complex legal argument more than 10 years ago on behalf of a group of American victims of terror attacks in Israel. Over the subsequent decade the civil action would extend its reach around the world with claims that Arab Bank, an international Jordan-based bank, should be held responsible for a wave of suicide bombings in the early 2000s that left several Americans dead or wounded.
On Monday in a Brooklyn federal courtroom – more than five weeks after jury selection began in the long-awaited trial – jurors returned a verdict for Werbner’s clients, finding that the bank should be held responsible.
Writes the AP this afternoon:
The high-stakes legal offshoot of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had pitted American victims of terror attacks in Israel in the early 2000s against an international bank with several branches in Gaza and the West Bank. The victims sued in 2004, accusing the bank of knowingly helping Hamas fund a "death and dismemberment benefit plan" for martyrs from the occupied territories. The civil action marked the first time a bank had faced a trial under the Anti-Terrorism Act, which allows victims of U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations to seek compensation. The U.S. State Department designated Hamas a terrorist group in 1997.
During closing arguments last week, Werbner, co-founder of Dallas-based Sayles Werbner, acknowledged the challenge in bringing a case of such importance to trial.
“What am I doing here? What difference will it make?” he told jurors. “You know what’s going on in the world since then. It’s not any better. You know what we’re facing.”
The argument's complexity was obvious to international media watching the trial.
The burden of proof was high, notes the New York Times. The plaintiffs had to prove that the terrorist attacks were indeed conducted by Hamas, and that the bank’s support of Hamas was the “proximate cause” of the events. In addition, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate that their injuries were “reasonably foreseeable” as a consequence of the bank’s acts.
After 10 years of litigation and a five-week trial, the jury apparently found that the plaintiffs met the legal threshold, and ruled that the bank was liable. A separate hearing will be held to determine damages.
September 17, 2014 by Dave Moore at 12:00:00 am
There’s no doubt that prearranged bankruptcies have become popular in the realm of corporate reorganizations. There are plenty of reasons: many key players are incorporated into the process of settling debt issues; they’re much quicker and (as a result) less expensive than traditional bankruptcies; and the company can continue to operate throughout the process.
But, as Dallas bankruptcy attorney Rakhee Patel wrote (paywall-protected link here) recently for Texas Lawbook, something unanticipated happened in the prearranged bankruptcy planned for Energy Future Holdings (EFH) and its subsidiaries:
From the start of the bankruptcy process, one of EFH’s main goals has been a tax-free spinoff of its TXU Energy division. However, an unexpected wrinkle arose when a competitive bidding war emerged relating in part to the Oncor division, resulting in EFH potentially having more value than initially thought.
Patel, a partner in the restructuring and bankruptcy section of Shackelford, Melton, McKinley & Norton, LLP, indicates that the increased value of the Oncor division effectively nixed the prearranged bankruptcy planned for Energy Future Holdings, very likely increasing the length and expense of the bankruptcy.
The gain in Oncor’s value in the EFH reorganization might reinforce the maxim: Good things come to those who wait.
Law Firm News
Tex Parte Blog
WSJ Law Blog