Opinion ID: 4243782
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency Challenge to Causation Finding

Text: Arab Bank argues that, rather than vacate and remand, we should reverse the challenged judgment because the trial evidence was legally insufficient to prove causation under either the proximate cause standard charged to the jury or the but‐for causation standard that (the bank contends) should have been charged. The argument merits little discussion in light of JASTA. The bank’s causation challenge is based on plaintiffs’ trial theory that Arab Bank had itself committed an act of international terrorism by providing material support to Hamas in the form of financial services, which support was a proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries. We need not decide whether the facts here can support 35 such a finding despite In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d at 124 (holding that mere provision of routine banking services to terrorists does not necessarily support causation). After JASTA, plaintiffs are not limited to proving their ATA claim on a theory of Arab Bank’s primary liability. They can now urge Arab Bank’s liability on the alternative theory that it aided and abetted acts of terrorism by others, which acts caused plaintiffs’ injuries. See 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d)(2), Statutory Note (Effective and Applicability Provisions). Arab Bank does not—and cannot—dispute the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that the Hamas terrorists who committed the three attacks at issue caused plaintiffs’ injuries, whether as a matter of proximate or but‐for causation. Thus, causation provides no ground for reversal. Rather, vacatur and remand are warranted for the reasons stated in the preceding points: (1) instructional error precludes affirming judgment on a primary theory of liability against Arab Bank; and (2) to the extent plaintiffs can now rely on JASTA, Arab Bank’s liability as an aider and abettor cannot here be determined as a matter of law but must be decided by a jury on remand. If this case were, in fact, to be retried on remand, it might be appropriate for us to address Arab Bank’s argument as to the standard of causation required for ATA liability, although, as we have noted, it appears undisputed that, on a theory of aiding and abetting liability, there can be no question that Hamas acts of terrorism satisfy both the proximate and but‐for causation standards. But, as Arab Bank concedes, once we vacate the 36 judgment and remand on any ground supporting a new trial, we need not consider its other arguments urging that relief because the parties’ settlement agreement specifies that there will be no retrial in any event. Rather, vacatur and remand will result in a specified monetary payment. Thus, having determined that charging error on the ATA’s international terrorism element warrants vacatur and remand, we do not further consider the bank’s challenges as to either the causation standard charged or the imposition of discovery sanctions.