ABC v. DEF

Filing 77

OPINION AND ORDER: Halkbank's September 25, 2020 motion to dismiss is conditionally granted. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 2/16/2021) (ama) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 36

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------- X
:
JAMES OWENS; VICTORIA J. SPIERS; GARY :
:
ROBERT OWENS; BETTY OWENS; BARBARA
GOFF; FRANK B. PRESSLEY, JR.; YASEMIN :
B. PRESSLEY; DAVID A. PRESSLEY; THOMAS :
C. PRESSLEY; MICHAEL F. PRESSLEY; BERK :
F. PRESSLEY; JON B. PRESSLEY; MARC. Y. :
PRESSLEY; SUNDUS BUYUK; MONTINE BOWEN; :
:
FRANK PRESSLEY, SR.; BAHAR BUYUK;
:
SERPIL BUYUK; TULAY BUYUK; AHMET
BUYUK; DOROTHY WILLARD; ELLEN MARIE
:
:
BOMER; DONALD BOMER; MICHAEL JAMES
CORMIER; ANDREW JOHN WILLIAM CORMIER; :
ALEXANDRA RAIN CORMIER; GEORGE KARAS; :
NICHOLAS KARAS; PAUL HIRN; ELOISE
:
:
HUBBEL; MARGARET BAKER; LINDA
O’DONNELL; ESTATE OF LEROY MOOREFIELD; :
LORETTA PAXTON; LORA MURPHY; LINDA
:
SHOUGH; LAURA HARRIS; ESTATE OF ROGER :
MOOREFIELD; ESTATE OF RODNEY
:
MOOREFIELD; RICHARD PATRICK; ESTATE OF :
EULOGIO QUILACIO; EDILBERTO QUILACIO; :
ROLANDO QUILACIO; SUSAN NICHOLAS;
:
CANDELARIA FRANCELISO; WILLIAM MWILA; :
EDWINA MWILA; HAPPINESS MWILA;
:
PATRICIA FEORE; CLYDE M. HIRN; ALICE
:
M. HIRN; PATRICIA K. FAST; INEZ P.
:
HIRN; JOYCE REED; WORKLEY LEE REED;
:
CHERYL L. BLOOD; BRET W. REED; RUTH
:
ANN WHITESIDE; LORIE GULICK; PAM
:
WILLIAMS; FLOSSIE VARNEY; LYDIA
:
SPARKS; HOWARD SPARKS; TABITHA CARTER; :
HOWARD SPARKS, JR.; MICHAEL RAY
:
SPARKS; GARY O. SPIERS; VICTORIA Q.
:
SPIERS; JULITA A. QUALICIO; JUDITH
:
ABASI MWILA; DONTE AKILI MWAIPAPE;
:
DONTI AKILI MWAIPAPE; VICTORIA DONTI
:
MWAIPAPE; ELISHA DONTI MWAIPAPE;
:
JOSEPH DONTI MWAIPAPE; DEBORA DONTI
:
MWAIPAPE; NKO DONTI MWAIPAPE; MONICA
:
AKILI; AKILI MUSUPAPE; VALENTINE
:
MATHEW KATUNDA; ABELLA VALENTINE
:
KATUNDA; VENANT VALENTINE MATHEW
:
KATUNDA; DESIDERY VALENTINE MATHEW
:

20cv02648 (DLC)
OPINION AND ORDER

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 36

KATUNDA; VEIDIANA VALENTINE KATUNDA;
DIANA VALENTINE KATUNDA; EDWINE
VALENTINE MATHEW KATUNDA; ANGELINA
MATHEW FELIX; EDWARD MATHEW
RUTAHESHELWA; ELIZABETH MATHEW
RUTAHESHELWA; ANGELINA MATHEW
RUTAHESHELWA; HAPPINESS MATHEW
RUTAHESHELWA; ERIC MATHEW
RUTAHESHELWA; ENOC MATHEW
RUTAHESHELWA; ANGELINA MATHEW-FERIX;
MATHEW-FERIX; MATHEW RTAHESHELWA;
TIRISA THOMAS; SAMUEL THOMAS MARCUS;
CECILIA SAMUEL MARCUS; CORONELLA
SAMUEL MARCUS; KULWA RAMADHANI; RIZWAN
KHALIQ; JENNY CHRISTIANA LOVBLOM;
IMRAN KHALIQ; TEHSIN KHALIQ; KAMRAN
KHALIQ; IMTIAZ BEDUM; IRFAN KHALIQ;
YASIR AZIZ; NAURIN KHALIQ; KENNETH
SPENCER, JR.; SAMUEL P. RICE; STEVEN
JOSEPH DIAZ; ESTATE OF DAVID BROWN;
ESTATE OF JESSE JAMES ELLISON; ROBERT
SWORD; STEVEN SIBILLE; DONALD HOWELL;
FRANCES SPENCER; ESTATE OF KENNETH
SPENCER, SR.; AMY MORROW; KAREN BROWN;
KRIS BOERGER; SAMUEL O. RICE; BELINDA
RICE; AMY COGSWELL; DAVID RICE; TODD
RICE; VALERIE TRAIL; DANIEL RICE; LISA
SCHULTZ; STEVEN JAMES DIAZ; JANE
ASTRID DIAZ; ROBERT DIAZ; TERESA DIAZ;
MAGDALENA MARY DIAZ; RAUL DIAZ; EDWARD
DIAZ; ESTATE OF DANIEL P. DIAZ;
CARMELLA WOOD; PATSY MCENTIRE; LEWIS
BROWN; LISA MAYBIN; RONNY BROWN;
CYNTHIA BURT; ESTATE OF THERISA
EDWARDS; ESTATE OF ANDRES ALVARADO
MIRBAL; ESTATE OF NERIDA TULL BAEZ;
ESTATE OF MARGARET O’BRIEN; MITCHELL
ANDERSON; ESTATE OF VIRGINIA ELLISON;
ESTATE OF KENNETH ELLISON; KIMBERLY
CARLSON; GARY CARLSON; DANIEL CARLSON;
WILLIAM CARLSON; PENNY NELSON; BEULAH
SWORD; WILLIAM SWORD; JOHN SWORD;
JERRY SWORD; CAROLINE BROADWINE;
ESTATE OF VERIAN SIBILLE; ESTATE OF
VICTOR SIBILLE, JR.; VICTOR SIBILLE
IV; VICTOR WATORO; KEVIN SIBILLE;
2

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 36

VALERIE UNKEL; PAMELA SCHULTZ;
STEPHANIE HARDY; MARY JANE HOWELL;
RONALD HOWELL; DONNA BLACK; MARIO H.
VASQUEZ; DENNY WEST; THE ESTATE OF
JOHN CHIPURA; EILEEN CHIPURA; NANCY
CHIPURA; GERARD CHIPURA; SUSAN COHEN;
ESTATE OF ROSCOE HAMILTON; FREDA SUE
GAYHEART; RAMONA GREEN; ROBERT
HAMILTON; JAMES EDWARDS; RAY EDWARDS;
BETTY SUE ROWE; GARY EDWARDS; RALPH
EDWARDS; ESTATE OF LARRY EDWARDS;
ESTATE OF DAVID WORLEY; NANCY WORLEY;
DAVID WORLEY; BRYAN WORLEY; ESTATE OF
JOHN BUCKMASTER; ESTHER BUCKMASTER;
GREGG BUCKMASTER; VICKIE BUCKMASTER;
ARLEY BUCKMASTER; ESTATE OF MALKA
ROTH; FRIMET ROTH; PESIA ROTH; RIVKA
ROTH RAPPAPORT; ZVI ROTH; SHAYA ROTH;
PINCHAS ROTH; ESTATE OF JACOB FRITZ;
NOALA FRITZ; ESTATE OF LYLE FRITZ;
ETHAN FRITZ; DANIEL FRITZ; ESTATE OF
BRYAN CHISM; ELIZABETH CHISM; DANNY
CHISM; VANESSA CHISM; JULIE CHISM;
ESTATE OF SHAWN FALTER; LINDA FALTER;
MARJORIE FALTER; ESTATE OF RUSSELL J.
FALTER; RUSSELL C. FALTER; ANDREW
LUCAS; DAVID LUCAS; TIMOTHY LUCAS;
MARSHA NOVAK; JASON SACKETT; JOHN
SACKETT; ESTATE OF AHMED AL-TAIE;
HATHAL K. TAIE; KOUSAY AL-TAIE; NAWAL
AL-TAIE; MONICAH OKOBA OPATI, in her
own right, as executrix of the estate
of CAROLINE SETLA OPTI; SELIFAH
ONGECHA OPATI; RAEL ANGARA OPATI;
SALOME RATEMO, in his own right, as
executor of the ESTATE OF SALLY
CECILIA MAMBOLEO; KEVIN RATEMO;
FREDRICK RATEMO; LUIS RATEMO; STACY
WAITHERA; MICHAEL DANIEL WERE; JUDITH
NANDI BUSERA; ROSELYNE KARSORANI;
GEORGE MWANGI; BERNARD MACHARI; GAD
GIDEON ACHOLA; MARY NJOKI MUIRIRI;
JONATHAN KARANIA NDUTI; ANNE NGANGA
MWANGI; ESTER NGANGA MWANGI; GITIONGA
MWANIKI; ROSE NYETTE; ELIZABETH NZAKU;
PATRICK NYETTE; CORNELIUS KEBUNGO;
3

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 4 of 36

PHOEBE KEBUNGO; JOAN ADUNDO; BENARD
ADUNDO; NANCY NJOKI MACHARIA; STANLEY
KINYUA MACHARIA; SALLY OMONDI; JAEL
NYOSIEKO OYOO; EDWIN OYOO; MIRIAM
MUTHONI; PRISCAH OWINO; GREG OWINO;
MICHAEL KAMAU MWANGI; CHRISTINE MIKALI
KAMAU; JOSEPH GATHUNGA; JOSHUA O.
MAYUNZU; ZACKARIA MUSALIA ATING’A;
JULIUS M. NYAMWENO; POLYCHEP ODHIAMBO;
DAVID JAIRUS AURA; CHARLES OLOKA
OPONDO; ANN KANYAHA SALAMBA; ANN
SALAMBA; ERASTUS MIJUKA NDEDA; CECILIA
NDEDA; TECHONIA OLOO OWITI; JOSEPH
INGOSI; WILLIAM W. MAINA; PETER NGIGI
MUGO; SIMON MWANHI NGURE; JOSEPH K.
GATHUNGU; DIXON OLUBINZO INDIYA; PETER
NJENGA KUNGU; CHARLES GT. KABUI; JOHN
KISWILI; FRANCISO KYALO; ROSE NYETTE;
PATRICK NYETTE; CHARITY KITAO; LEILANI
BOWER; WINNIE NDIODA KIMEU;; MICHAEL
NGANGA KIMEU; AUDREY MAINI NASIEKU
PUSSY; KENNEDY OKELO; HELLEN OKELO
NYAIEGO; RONALD OKELO; ELIZABETH M.
AKINYI OKELO; LESLIE ONONO; LAURA
ONONO; STEPHEN ONONO; ANDREW ONONO;
LESLEY HELLEN ACHIENG; RISPAH JESSICA
AUMA; STEPHEN JONATHAN OMANDI; ANDREW
THOMAS OBONGO; LAURA MARGARET ATIENO;
WALLACE NJOREGE STANLEY NYOIKE; PETER
KINYANJUI; LUKAS NDILE KIMEU; JACKSON
KTHUVA MUSKOYA; GLADYS MUNANIE
MUSYOKA; TITUS MUSYOKA; ARCY MUSYOKA
KITHUVA; JANE MUTUA; MARY NZISIVA
SAMUEL; SYUINDO MUSYOKA; KILEI
MUSYOKA; KEELIY MUSYOKA; MANZI
MUSYOKA; CONCEPTOR ORENDE; GRACE
BOSIBERI ONSONGO; NEPHAT KIMATHI;
LEONARD SHINENGAH; CAROLINE WANGU
KARIGI; STEVE MARUNGI KARIGI; MARTIN
KARIGI; WYCLIFFE OKELLO KHABUCHI;
IRENE KHABUCHI; MARY SALIKU BULIMU;
HESBON BULIMU; JACKSON BULIMU; GODFREY
BULIMU; MILLICENT BULIMU; LYDIA
BULIMU; RODGERS BULIMU; FRIDA BULIMU;
EMMILY BULIMU; MERCY BULIMU; HESBON
LIHANDA; WINIFRED MAINA; BETTY KAGAI;
4

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 5 of 36

KATIMBA MOHAMED; FRIDA YOHAN MTITU;
GEOFFREY L. TUPPER; OMAR ZUBERI OMAR;
ASHA R. MAHUNDI; EMMA R. MAHUNDI;
MWAJUMA R. MAHUNDI; SHABAN R. MAHUNDI;
JUMA R. MAHUNDI; AMIRI R. MAHUNDI;
YUSUPH R. MAHUNDI; MWAJABU R. MAHUNDI;
ALLY R. MAHUNDI; SAID R. MAHUNDI;
MWAJUMBA MAHUNDI; ASHA SHABANI KILUWA;
LEVIS MADAHANA BUSERA; EMMANUEL
MUSAMBAYI BUSERA; CHRISTINE KAVAI
BUSERA; AGNES TUPPER; AGNES WANJIKU
NDUNGU; SHADRACK TUPPER; DONNIE
GAUDENS; SELINA GAUDENS; MARY ESTHER
KIUSA; LEONARD RAJAB WAITHIRA; JOSEPH
NDUNGU WAITHIRA; GRACE WANJIRU
WAITHIRA; BADAWY ITATI ALI; FRIDAH
MAKENA ALIJAH; RUTH GATWIRI MWIRIGI;
JOAN KENDI NKANATHA; FRANCIS JOSEPH
KWINBERE; IRENE FRANCIS KWIMBERE;
FREDRICK FRANCIS KWIMBERE; SANI
BENJAMIN FRANCIS KWIMBERE; BARBARA
WOTHAYA OLAO; ALLAN COLLINS OLAO;
LEVINA VALERIAN R. MINJA; VIOLET
TIBRUSS MINJA; EMMANUEL TIBRUSS MINJA;
NICKSON TIBRESS MINJA; REHANA MALIK;
ELIZABETH CLIFFORD TARIMO; MARAGET
CLIFFORD TARIMO; MERCY NYOKABI
NDIRITU; CHRISTOPHER NDIRITU; EDWIN
KAARA MAGOTHE; SEDRICK JEROME KEITH
NAIR; TANYA NAIR; SEDRICK NAIR;
VALENTINA HIZA; CHRISTOPHER HIZA;
CHRISTANTSON HIZA; CHRISTEMARY HIZA;
SALIMA ISUMAIL; JOSEPH FARAHAT
ABDALLAH; MAJDOLINE SARAH ABDALLAH;
RISPAH AYSHA ABDALLA; CHRISTINE BWAKU;
EPHRAIM BWAKU; FLAVIA HIYANGA; DIANA
FREDERICK KIBODYA; MARGARET NJERU
MURIGI; BELONCE WAIRIMU MURIGI; FAITH
NJERI MURIGI; MISCHECK NDUATI MURIGI;
ERIC WAMBUA MWAKA; PETER MULWA MWAKA;
FELIX MATHEKA MWAKA; CIVILIER WAYUA
MWAKA; AGNES AKIWAL KUBAI; COLLINS
KUBAI; CELESTINE KUBAI; SALINE KUBAI;
HELLEN JEPKORIR MARITIM; ALICE JEROP
MARITIM; RUTH CHERONO MARITIM; ANNE
CHEPKEMOI MARITIM; SHARONE MARITIM;
5

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 6 of 36

EDGAR MARITIM; SHEILA CHEBET MARITIM;
GIDEON MARITIM; EDGAR KIPLINO MARTIN;
RAMMY KIPYEGO ROTICH; WAMBUI E. KUNGU;
LORNA N. KUNGU; EDWARD G. KUNGU; ONEAL
EZEKIEL MDOBILU; ONAEL DAVID MDOBILU;
PETER LOUS MDOBILU; JOHN GEORGE
MDOBILU; KATHERINE ANNE MDOBILI;
KATHERINE MWAKA; IMMANUEL SETVEN
MDOBILU; ANIPHA SOLLY MPOTO; JOSHUA
DANIEL MDOBILU; INOSENSIA MPOTO;
VICTOR MPOTO; DENIS MATERN MPOTO;
ANTHONY MUNGAI; BARBARA MUTHONI; EDDIE
KIARIE KIBURU; ANTHONY KIARIE; BARBARA
KIARIE; JOANNE NATALIE AWUOR OPORT;
YVONNE NATASHA AKINYI OPORT; SALLY
RISSY AUMA OPORT; MILICENT MALESI;
CHARITY KIATO; JUDY KIARIE; GODFREY
JADEVERA; LYDIA ANDEMO; RODGERS
AKIDIVA; FRIDA MWANURU; EMMILY MMBONE;
JACKSON MADEGWA; MERCY MAKUNGU; LYDIA
OSEBE GWARO; DEBORA MOIGE GWARO;
EMMANUEL OGORO GWARO; JAMES OGWERI
GWARO; EUCABETH GWARO; JOHN NDIBUI
MWANGI; GIDEON WABWOBA OFISI; ANDREW
NHULI MAKAU; FRANCIS WABUTI OFISI;
GEOFFREY MBUURI MBUGUA; ALEX JOHN
MJUGUNA MBUGUA; ANNE WAMBUI NG’ANG’A;
ESTHER NJERI NG’ANG’A; CATHERINE NJERI
MWANGI; JACKSON NDUNGU; JOHN NGURE;
LUCY KAMBO; JACKLINE WAMBUI; JEFF
RABAR ORIARO; BETTY ORIARO; FELIX
MUNGUTI; PETRONILA KATHEO MUNGUTI;
ALEX KITHEU MUNGUTI; ZAKAYO MATIKO;
JACOB GATI; VALENTINE JEMO; MAUREEN
KADI; BEVERLYNE KADI; BEVERLYNE NDEDA;
CECILIA DAYO; DICKSON ULLETA LIHANDA;
RUTH KAVERERI; BERYL SHIUMBE; IRENE
KHASANDE; MICHAEL TSUMA; LESLIE
SAMBULI; PETER KUNIGO; HARRIET CHORE;
JAMES JANDY MURABU; STANLEY CHAKA
MURABU; STACY CHAKA; JAMES CHAKA;
STACEY NZALAMBI MURABU; IFURAIM
ONYANGO OKUKU; CHRISTINE NABWIRE
OKUKU; JOSPEH KAMBO; VALLEN ANDEYO;
PETER MUYALE KUYA; PENINAH AKWALE
MUCII; DANIEL AMBOKO KUYA; LOISE KUYA;
6

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 7 of 36

NORMAN KAGAI; TABITHA KAGAI; CHARLES
KAGAI; WENDY KAGAI; PAULINE AKOTH
ADUNDO; SAMUEL ODHIAMBO; THERESA
ACHIENG ADUNDO; ISIDORE OPONDO ADUNDO;
ANNE WASONGA ADUNDO; THOMAS ADUNDO;
JANE KHABUCHI; HENRY ALIVIZA
SHITIAVAI; JUDY ALIVIZA SHITIAVAI;
HUMPHREY ALIVIZA; COLLINS MUDAIDA
ALIVIZA; JACQUELINE ALIVIZA; JARUHA
YASHIEENA MUSALIA; FLORENCE MUSALIA;
ELLY MUGOVE MUSALIA; VALLEN ANDEYO;
JURUHA MUSALIA; GLADIS LIHANDA; RUTH
LIHANDA; HESBON LIHANDA; JANE ISIAHO
SHAMWAMA; BEATRICE HOKA; BEATRICE
AMDUSO; JOAB ANDAYI MISANGO; JUSTIN
AMDUSO; IREEN SEMO; JOHNSTONE MUKABI;
ANN WAIRIMU; MARYANN NJOKIE; DANIEL
KIONGO; SAMMY NDUNGU KIARIE; FAITH
MUTINDI; JOYCE MUTHEU; BEATRICE
ATINGA; SAMMY OKERE; PURITY MUHONJA;
VICTOR ADEKA, BRIAN KUBAI; JOHN
ZEPHANIA MBOGE; JOYCE THADEI LOKOA;
MERESIANA (MARY) PAUL; GRACE PAUL;
RASHID SELEMANI KATIMBA; SAID SELEMANI
KATIMBA; ASHA OMARI ABDULLAH; AUGUST
MAFFRY; CAROLINE S. MAFFRY; ALISON D.
MAFFRY; ALICEMARY TALBOT; ENNA JOHN
OMOLO; LYNETTE OYANDA; LINDA OYANDA;
FELOGENE OYANDA; VERA JEAN OYANDA;
CLAIRE OWINO, KENNETH OWINO; LEAH
OWINO; GERALD OWINO; ORA COHEN; MEIRAV
COHEN; SHIRA COHEN; DANIEL COHEN;
ELCHANAN COHEN; ORLY COHEN; ORLY
MOHABER; SHALOM COHEN; SHOKAT SADIAN;
RONIT MOHABER; NERIA MOHABER; JOSEPH
MOHABER; NETHANIEL CHAIM BLUTH;
SHOSHANA ROSALYN BLUTH; EPHRAIM BLUTH;
TSIPORA BATYA BLUTH REICHER; ISAAC
MENAHEM BLUTH; YIGAL AMIHAI BLUTH;
ARIEH YAHUDA BLUTH; CHANINA SAMUEL
BLUTH; ABRAHAM BLUTH; JOSEPH BLUTH;
WINIFRED WAIRIUMU WAMAI, in her own
right, as personal representative of
the ESTATE OF ADAMS TITUS WAMAI; DIANA
WILLIAMS; TITUS WAMAI; ANGELA WAMAI;
LLOYD WAMAI; JOHN MURIUKI GIRANDI;
7

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 8 of 36

SARAH ANYISO TIKOLO, individually and
for the ESTATE OF MOSES GEOFREY
NANIAI; NEGEEL ANDIKA; GRACE NJERI
KIMATA, individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF
FRANCIS WATORO MAINA; GITAU CATHERINE
WAITHIRA; EARNEST GICHIRI GITAU;
FELISTER WANJIRU GITAU; GRACE NJERI
GICHO, individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF PETER
KABAU MACHARIA; DIANA NJOKI MACHARIA;
NGUGI MACHARIA; LUCY KAMAU,
individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATES OF
JOSEPH KAMAU KIONGO and TERESIA
WAIRIMU; JANE KAMAU; ALICE MUHONI
KAMAU; NEWTON KAMAU; PAULINE KAMAU;
PETER KAMAU; MERCY KAMAU WAIRIMU; ANN
WAMBUI KAMAU; DANIEL KIOMHO KAMAU;
NYANGORO WILFRED MAYAKA, individually
and as personal representative for the
ESTATE OF MAYAKA LYDIA MUKIRI; DOREEN
MAYAKA; DICK OBWORO; DIANA NYANGARA;
DEBORAH KERUBO; DEBRA MAYAKA; JACOB
AWALA, individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATES OF
JOSIAH OWUOR and EDWINA OWUOR; WARREN
AWALA; VINCENT OWOUR; MORDECHAI THOMAS
ONONO, individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF LUCY
GRACE ONONO; PRISCILLA OKATCH,
individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF
MAURICE OKATCH OGOLA; DENNIS OKATCH;
ROSEMARY ANYANGO OKATCH; SAMSON
OKATCH; JENIPHER OKATCH; JOSINDA
KATUMBA KAMAU, individually and as
personal representative for the ESTATE
OF VINCENT KAMAU NYOIKE; CAROLINE
WANJIRU KAMAU; FAITH WANZA KAMAU;
ELIZABETH VUTAGE MALOBA, individually
and as personal representative for the
ESTATE OF FREDERICK YAFES MALOBA;
KENNETH MALOBA; MARGARET MALOBA;
ADHIAMBO SHARON; OKILE MARLON; LEWIS
MAFWAVO; MARLONG OKILE; MARY MUTHEU
8

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 9 of 36

NDAMBUKI, individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF KIMEU
NZIOKA NGANA; GRACE NJERI GICHO,
individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF PETER
KABAU MARCHARIA; STANLEY NJAR NGUGI;
MARGARET NJOKI NGUGI; ANN RUGURU;
NAGUGI MACHARIA; DAVID KARIUKI NGUGI;
PAUL MWANGI NGUGI; JOHN MUNGAI NGUGI;
PETER NGUGI; GRACE NJERI KIMATA,
individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF
FRANCIS WATORO MAINA; MAINA VICTOR;
WAMBUI RACHEL; OLE PUSSY SAMUEL
KASHOO, individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF
RACHEL MUNGASIA PUSSY; ANDREW PUSSY;
SAMUEL PUSSY; DOREEN NASIEKU; ELSY
PUSSY; ROSEMARY ANYANGO OLELE,
individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF
FRANCIS OLEWE OCHILO; WENDY ACHIENG;
JULIET AWUOR; JANE KATHUKA,
individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF
GEOFFREY MULU KALIO; BERNICE MUTHEU
NDETI; DAEN NTHAMBI MULU; TABITHA
NTHAMBI KALIO; AQUILAS MUTUKU KALIO;
CATHERINE MBATHA; LILIAN MBELU KALIO;
CATHERINE GITUMBO, individually and as
personal representative for the ESTATE
OF JOEL GITUMBO KAMAU; EUNICE MUTHOUI;
ELIZABETH WANJIKU; DAVID KAMAU; PETER
KIBUE KAMAU; PHILIP KARIUKI GITUMBO;
KAMALI MUSYOKA, individually and as
personal representative for the ESTATE
OF DOMINIC MUSYOKA; BEATRICE MARTHA
KITHUVA; BENSON MALUSI MUSYOKA; WASON
MUSYOKA; CAROLINE KASUNGO MGALI; TITUS
KYAW MUSYOKA; VELMA BONYO,
individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF
KLYELIFF C. BONYO; DORINE BONYO;
ELIJAH BONYO; ANJELA BONYO; WINNIE
BONYO; JOYCE ABUR, individually and as
personal representative for the ESTATE
9

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 10 of 36

OF ERIC ONYANGO; TILDA A. ABUR;
KELESENDHIA APONDI; BARNABAS ONYANGO;
PAUL JABODA ONYANGO; FAITH KIHAFIO,
individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF TONY
KIHATO IRUNGU; JACQUILINE WANGECI;
STEVE MBUKU; ANNAH WANGECI IRUNGU; ALI
HUSSEIN ALI, individually and as
personal representative for the ESTATE
OF HINDU OMAR IDDI; FATHMA IDDI; OMAR
IDDI; HAMIDA IDDI; RASHIHID IDDI;
MAHMOUD IDDI; SUSAN HIRSH,
individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF
ABDULRAHMAN M. ABDALLA; SELINA SAIDI,
individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF SAIDI
ROGATH; ESTATE OF VERONICA ALOIS
SAIDI; JOHN SAIDI; DANIEL SAIDI;
IDIFONCE SAIDI; ESTATE OF AISHA
MAWAZO; ADABETH NANG’OKO; HANUNI
NDANGE, individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF YUSUF
NDANGE; MAUA MDANGE; HALIMA NDANGE;
JUMA NDANGE; MWHAJABU NDANGE; ABDUL
NDANGE; RAMAHDANI NDANGE; JUDITH
MWILA, individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF
WILLIAM ABBAS MWILA; MOHAMED Y.
MNYOLYA, individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF
ABDALLAH M. MNYOLYA; NURU H. SULTANI;
AISHA KAMBENGA, individually and as
personal representative for the ESTATE
OF BAKARI NYUMBU; KULWA RAMADHANI,
individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF DOTTO
RAMADHANI; MENGO RAMADHANI; REHENA
RAMADHANI; UPENDI RAMADHANI; KASSIM
RAMADHANI; MAJAHWA RAMADHANI; SAIDI
MTUYLA; ABDUL MTULYA; MAGDALENA PAUL,
ESTATE OF ELISHA E. PAUL; SHABANI
MTULYA, individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF
MTENDEJE RAJABU; HUSSEIN RAMADHANI,
individually and as personal
10

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 11 of 36

representative for the ESTATE OF
RAMADHANI MAHUNDI; RUKIA MUNJIRU ALI;
MILKE W. MACHARIA; BEUNDA KEBOGO J.
CHAKA; GEORGE M. MIMBA; MARY OFISI;
MONICA MUNYORI; NICHOLAS M. MUTISO;
DAVID K. KIBURU; JECINTA W. WAHOME;
JOSEPH WAHOME; BELINDA AKINYI ADIKA;
KIRIUMBU WMBURU MUKURIA; ELIZABETH
MULI KIBUE; MARY WANJUGU GITONGA;
LAYDIAH WANJIRU MWANGI; CHARLES MWAKA
MULWA; BONIFACE CHEGE; LUCY CHEGE;
CAROLINE W. GICHURU; LIVINGSTONE
MADAHANA; WELLINGTONE OLUOMA; MARINI
KARIMA; ELSIE W. KAGIMBI; SAMUEL O.
ORIARO; GIDEON K. MAZITIM; MARGARET W.
NDUNGU; MENELIK KWAMIA MAKONNEN; JOHN
MUIRU NDUNGU; CHARLES NKANATHA; PERIS
GITUMBU; STACY WAITHERE; CAROLINE NGUI
NGUGI; PATRICK OUMA OKECHI; RAPHEL N.
KIVINDYO; TOBIAS O. OTIENO; AARON
MAKAU; RAMDAN KIMAM JURAU; CAROLINE N.
OCHIENG; OLAMBO CHARLES; EMILY K.
MINAYO; FRANCIS MAINE NDIBUL; CHARLES
M. NDIBUL; MOSES M. KUIYVA; MARINA
KIRIMA; THOMAS OHUORO; LIMMLES I.
KASUI; MICHAEL N. MWORIA; JOASH O.
OKENDO; JULIUS OGORO; AGGREY N. ABUTI;
RENSON M. ASHIKA; ABDULRAHMAN R.
BASHIR; JENNIFER J. CHEBOL; JOSEPH T.
GATHECHA; IDDI A. KAKA; JAMES KANJA;
BERNARD M. KASWII; DAVID M. KIMANI;
SAMUEL KIVINDYO; PETER N. KUNG’U;
WAMBUI KUNG’U; RACHEL WAMBUI WATORO;
LORNA KUNG’U; EDWARD KUNG’U; GITONGA
MWANIKE; THOMAS G. KURIA; JAMES M.
MACHARIA; MILKA WANGARI MACHARIA;
TOITORO O. MASANGA; ROBERT M. MATHEKA;
RICHARD N. MAWEU; MATTHEW M. MBITHI;
FRANCIS N. MBURU; PAUL K. MUSAU;
EDWARD M. MUTHAMA; THOMAS M. MUTUA;
JAMES M. MUTUKU; PAUL G. MWINGI; LUCAS
M. NDILE; ANTHONY NGINYA; ALEXANDER C.
NJERU; ENOS NZALWA; JULIUS M. NZIVO;
FREDERICK O. OBANGA; JUSTUS M. WAMBUA;
MAKONNEN K. MENERIC; JAMES BABIRA
NDEDA; PAULINE D. ABDALLAH; JOHN
11

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 12 of 36

NDUATI; WUNNIE W. GICHURU; BLASIO
SHIKAMI; BLASIO KUBAI; CYNTHIA KIMBLE;
HENRY KESSY; EVITTA KWIMBERE;
ELIZABETH SLATER; NAFISA MALIK;
VALERIE NAIR; LAUREL MCMULLEN;
CHRISTANT HIZA; FREDERICK KABODYA;
JUSTINA MDOBILU; BENJAMIN WINFORD;
CHRISTOPHER MCMULLEN; HOSIANNA MMBAGA;
TIBRUSS MINJA; SAJJAD GULAMALI;
ANNASTACIAH LUCY BOULDEN; CLIFFORD
TARIMO; SITA MAGUA; EDDIESON KAPESA;
VALENTRY KATUNDA; EDSON MAUMU;
ZEPHANIA MBOGE; EDWARD RUTASHEHERWA;
VICTOR MPOPO; ALLY KINDAMBA; GAUDENS
THOMAS; MARY ONSONGO, individually and
as personal representative for the
ESTATE OF EVANS ONSONGO; ENOCH
ONSONGO; PERIS ONSONGO; VENICE
ONSONGO; ONSONGO MWEBERI; SALOME
ONSONGO; BERNARD ONSONGO; EDWIN
NYANGAU ONSONGO; GEORGE ONSONGO; VENIS
ONSONGO; EUNICE ONSONGO; PENINAH
ONSONGO; GLADYS ONSONGO; IRENE KUNG’U;
OSBORN OLWCH AWALLA, individually and
as personal representative for the
ESTATES OF JOSIA OWUOR and EDWINA
OWUOR; WARREN AWALA; VINCENT OWUOR;
MARTHA ACHIENG ONYANGO, individually
and as personal representative for the
ESTATE OF ERIC ONYANGO; JULIANA ATIENO
ONYANGO; MARITA ONYANGO; IRENA KUNG’U;
MILLY MIKALI AMDUSO; JOYCE AUMA OMBESE
ABUR, individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF ERIC
ABUR ONYANGO and on behalf of her
child TILDA ABUR; JOYCE ONYANGO; JAMES
ANDAYI MUKABI; HAMSA SAFULA ASDI,
individually and as personal
representative for the ESTATE OF
ABALIAH MUSYDKYA MWILU and on behalf
of her children HAMIDA MWILU,
VONZAIDRISS MWILU, and ASHA MWILU;
GERALD BOCHART; YVONNE BOCHART; JOMO
MATIKO BOKE; SELINA BOKE; MONICAH
KEBAYI MATIKO; VELMA AKOSA BONYO,
individually and as personal
12

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 13 of 36

representative for the ESTATE OF
CHRISPINE BONYO; DOREEN BONYO; ELIJAH
BONYO; ANGELA BONYO; WINNIE BONYO;
BENSON OKUKU BWAKU; BEATRICE MUGEMI
BWAKU; BELINDA CHAKA; MURABU CHAKA;
LUCY WAIRIMU; CATHERINE LUCY NYAMBURA
MWANGI; ANASTASIA GIANOPULOS, as
executrix of THE ESTATE OF PHAEDRA
VERONTAMITIS and on behalf of the
children LEON VERONTAMITIS, PAUL
VERONTAMITIS, and ALEXANDER
VERONTAMITIS; GRACE NJERI GICHO, in
her own right and as executrix of THE
ESTATE OF PETER KABAU MACHARIA, and on
behalf of the child DIANA NJOKI; LUCY
MUTHONI GITAU, in her own right, as
executrix of the ESTATE OF LAWRENCE
AMBROSE GITAU, and on behalf of the
children MARGARET WAMBUI GITAU, SUSAN
NJERI GITAU, CATHERINE WAITHERA GITAU,
FELISTER WANJIRU GITAU, and ERNEST
GIGHIRI GITAU; JAPETH MUNJAL GODIA;
MERAB A. GODIA; JOTHAM ODIANGO GODIA;
GRACE AKANYA; OMARI IDI, in her own
right and as executrix of the ESTATE
OF HINDU OMARI IDI, and on behalf of
the children MAHAMUD IDI, RASHID IDI,
and HAMIDA IDI; CAROLINE NGUHI KAMAU;
KIMANI KAMAU; HANNAH NGENDA KAMAU, in
her own right and as Executrix of the
ESTATE OF VINCENT KAMAU KYOIKE, and on
behalf of the children STANLEY NYOIKE,
SIMON NGUGI, MERCY WANJIRU, JENNIFER
NJERI, and ANTHONY NJOROGE; JANE
KAMAU, in her own right and as
Executrix of the ESTATE OF JOSEPH
NDUTA KAMAU, and on behalf of the
children MONICAH WAIRIMO KAMAU, and
JOAN WANJIKO KAMAU; JOSINDA KATUMBA
KAMAU, in her own right and as
Executrix of the ESTATE OF VINCENT
KAMAU KYOIKE, and on behalf of the
children FAITH WANZA KAMAU, CHRISTINE
M. KAMAU, CAROLYNE W. KAMAU, DUNCAN
NYOIKE, and RUTH NDUTA; JANE KAVINDU
KATHUKA in her own right and as
13

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 14 of 36

Executrix of the ESTATE OF GEOFFREY
MULU KALIO; DAWN NTHAMBI MULU; IKONYE
MICHAEL KIARIE; JANE MWERU KIARIE;
HUMPHREY KIBIRU; JENNIFER WAMBUI;
MICHAEL KIBUE KAMAU; DAVID KIBURU;
HUMPHREY KIBURU; JUDY WALTHERA; FAITH
WAMBUI KIHATO, in her own right and as
Executrix of the ESTATE OF TONY KIHATO
IRUNGU, and on behalf of the children
JACQUELINE IRUNGU, and STEVE INRUGU;
HARRISON KARIUKI KIMANI; GRACE WANJIKU
KIMANI; GRACE NJERI KIMATA, in her own
right and as Executrix of the ESTATE
OF FRANCIS WATORO MANAI, and on behalf
of the children VICTOR MANAI and
RACHEAL WAMBUI; ALICE MUZHOMI KIONGO,
in her own right and as Executrix of
the ESTATE OF JOSEPH KAMAU KIONGO, and
on behalf of the children NEWTON
KAMAU, PETER IKONYA, TERESIA WAITIMER,
PAULINE WANKIA KAMAU, and the ESTATE
OF TERESIA WAIRIMU KAMAU; LUCY KAMAU
KIONGO, as Executrix of the ESTATE OF
TERESIA WAIRIMU KAMAU; ELIZABETH
VICTORIA KITAO; RAPHAEL N. KIVINDYO;
MARGARET MWIKALI NZOMO; LUKA MWALIE
LITWAJ; MARY VUTAGWA MWALIE; DENNIS
KINYUA; MOSES KINYUA; NANCY N.
MACHARI; ELIZABETH VUTAGE MALOBA, in
her own right and as Executrix of the
ESTATE OF FREDERICK MALOBA YAFES, and
on behalf of the children MARLON OKILE
MALOBA, LEWIS MAFWAVO MALOBA, and
SHARON ADHIAMBO MALOBA; MARGARET
ONYACHI MALOBA, in her own right and
as Executrix of the ESTATE OF
FREDERICK MALOBA YAFES, and on behalf
of the children KENNETH MALOBA, FAITH
ACHEING, DERRICK MAOAKITWE, STEVEN
ODHIAMBO, and BELINDA ADHIAMBO; SARA
MWENDIA MBOGO, in her own right and as
Executrix of the ESTATE OF FRANCIS
MBOGO NJUNGE, and on behalf of the
children MESHARK IRERI, ISACK KARIUKI,
REUBEN NYAGA, NANCY WANJERU, EPHANUS
NJAGI, STEPHE NJUKI, and ANNE MUCHOGO;
14

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 15 of 36

STELLA WAMBUI MBUGUA; SOLOMON MBUGUA
MBUUN; SAMUEL MBUGUA NDUNGU; GEORGE
MAGAK MIMBA; NANCY MAGAK; EMILY
KANAIZA MINAY; HUDSON CHORE MAKIDIAH;
BARBARA E. MULI; STEPHEN MULI; CHARLES
MWAKA MULWA; CATHERIN NDUKI MWAKA;
RAPHAEL PETER MUNGUTI; MARY MBENEKA
MUNGUTI; BENSON NDEGWA MURUTHI; PHOEBA
NYAGUTHI NDEGWA; ANGELA MWONGELI;
SAMMY NG’ANG’A MWANGI; LUCY N.
NG’ANG’A; SARA TIKOLO NANIAI, in her
own right and as Executrix of the
ESTATE OF MOSES NAMAI, and on behalf
of the children NIGEEL ANDIIKA NAMAI;
JAMES NDEDA; VALENTINE NDEDA; MAUREEN
NDEDA; ROSELYNE KASORANI; CHARLES
MWANGI NDIBUI; MARGRET MWANGI NDIBUI;
FRANCIS MAINA NDIBUI; WINFRED MAINA;
AARON MAKAU NDIVO; LYDIAH MDILA MAKAU;
MARY MUTHONI, in her own right and as
Executrix of the ESTATE OF FRANCIS
NDUNGU MBUGUA, and on behalf of the
children EDITH NJERI, SAMUEL MBUGWA,
ANGES WANJIKU, JAMLECK GITAU, JOHN
MWIRY, and ANASTASIAH LUCY MUGURE;
OMUCHIRWA CHARLES OCHOLA; RAEL OCHOLA;
MARY MAKAU OFISI; JOHN MAKAU OFISI;
JULIUS GWARDO OGORO; ELIZABETH KERUBO
GWARO; PRISCILLA NDULA OKATCH, in her
own right and as Executrix of the
ESTATE OF MAURICE OKATUH OGOLLA, and
on behalf of the children JACKLINE
ACHIENG, ROSEMARY ANYANGO, SAMSON
OGOLLA, and DENNIS OKOTH; CAROLINE
OCHI OKECH; JOHNATHAN GILBERT OKECH;
PATRICK OUMA OKECH; PHELISTER OKECH;
MISCHECK MBOGO; PHAEDRA VRONTAMITIS;
LEONIDAS VRONTAMITIS; ALEXANDER
VRONTAMITIS; ISAAC KARIUKI MBOGO;
REUBEN NYAGA MBOGO; NANCY MBOGO;
EPHANTUS MBOGO; STEPHEN MBOGO; ANN
MBOGO; NEPHAT MBOGO; JOASH OTAO
OKINDO; LYDIA NYABOKA OTAO; ROSEMARY
A. OLEWE, in her own right and as
Executrix of the ESTATE OF FRANCIS
OLEWE OCHILO, and on behalf of the
15

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 16 of 36

children CHARLES OLEWE, JULIET OLEWE,
and WENDY OLEWE; DANIEL OWITI OLOO;
MAGDALINE ANYANGO OWITI; MARY AKOTSI
MUDECHE; FLORENCE PAMELA OMORI, in her
own right and as Executrix of the
ESTATE OF EDWIN OPIYO OMORI, and on
behalf of the children BRYAN BOAZ
OMORI, and JERRY ORETA OMORI; DOREEN
ATIENO OPORT; PHILEMON OPORT; OPORT
OPORT; SAMUEL ODHIAMOB ORIARO; BETTY
OBUNGA; RACHEL OYANDA; MARGARET KANINI
OTOLO, in her own right and as
Executrix of the ESTATE OF ROGER TOKA
OTOLO, and on behalf of the children
VICTOR OTOLO, ABRAHAM OTOLO, and
RICHARD OTOLO; TRUSHA PATEL; PANKAY
PATEL; HILARIO AMBROSE FERNANDES;
ROSELYNE NDEDA; ANNAH WANGECHI;
MICHAEL WARE; HANNAH WAMBUI; and
JACINTA W. WAHOME,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
TURKIYE HALK BANKASI A.S., a/k/a
:
“HALKBANK,”
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
-------------------------------------- X
APPEARANCES
For plaintiffs:
Robert L. Weigel
Jason W. Myatt
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Chantale Fiebig
Matthew D. McGill
Noah P. Sullivan
Suria M. Bahadue
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
16

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 17 of 36

1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
For defendant:
John S. Williams
Eden Schiffmann
Akhil K. Gola
Williams & Connolly LLP
725 Twelfth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Mehmet Baysan
Omer Er
Michelman & Robinson, LLP
800 Third Avenue, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10022
DENISE COTE, District Judge:
The plaintiffs in this case, judgment creditors of Iran,
bring suit against defendant Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S.
(“Halkbank”), a Turkish bank, seeking turnover of funds that
allegedly belonged to Iranian state-owned enterprises and were
fraudulently conveyed by Halkbank in a scheme to evade U.S.
sanctions.

Halkbank has moved to dismiss this action.

For the

reasons described in this Opinion, plaintiffs’ claims are
conditionally dismissed under the doctrine of forum non
conveniens.
Background
The following facts are taken from the Second Amended
Complaint (“SAC”), documents integral to the complaint or
incorporated therein, and where appropriate, the parties’
submissions on Halkbank’s motion to dismiss.
17

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 18 of 36

I.

The Parties
The 876 plaintiffs in this action are judgment creditors of

Iran.

Each plaintiff is either a direct victim of an overseas

terrorist attack committed by a group linked to Iran or a
surviving family member of a deceased victim of an overseas
terrorist attack committed by a group linked to Iran. 1

Most of

the plaintiffs do not reside in the United States: of the 670
plaintiffs for whom residency information is known, 468 reside
in a foreign country.

Of the 202 plaintiffs known to reside in

the United States, only nine are known to reside in New York.
Each plaintiff sued Iran in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1605 et seq., seeking
damages stemming from these attacks.

In each instance, Iran

defaulted, and in each instance, the district court awarded a
default judgment to the plaintiffs.

The awards consist of both

compensatory and punitive damages.

Collectively, the plaintiffs

in this action are owed over $10 billion by Iran.

Iran has not

satisfied any of the judgments.
Defendant Halkbank is a Turkish financial institution,
organized under Turkish law and headquartered in Turkey.
Halkbank operates almost entirely in Turkey: only a tiny
The attacks at issue occurred in Lebanon, Tanzania, Kenya,
Israel, a Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip, and Iraq.
1

18

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 19 of 36

percentage of its branches are located outside of Turkey, and
Halkbank has no branches or employees in the United States.

A

significant majority of the shares in Halkbank -- greater than
75 percent of the outstanding shares -- are owned by the Turkey
Wealth Fund, while the remaining shares are publicly traded.
The Turkey Wealth Fund, in turn, is controlled by the Turkish
government.

Halkbank is subject to other mechanisms of control

by the Turkish government: the Halkbank Board of Directors is
elected by the Turkish General Assembly, and the Turkish
Ministry of Treasury and Finance supervises Halkbank’s
operations.
II.

Halkbank’s Relationship to Iran
Between 2011 and 2013, the United States imposed sanctions

on Iran’s overseas financial transactions related to its
proceeds from its trade in oil and precious metals.

In 2011,

Congress enacted a law that prohibited, in most instances,
foreign financial institutions from facilitating petroleum
transactions with Iran.

National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-81, §§ 1245(d)(1)-(4), 125
Stat. 1298, 1647-49 (Dec. 31, 2011).

Then-President Obama

issued an Executive Order implementing the sanctions statute and
authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to impose restrictions
on foreign financial institutions that engaged in significant
financial transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company
19

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 20 of 36

(“NIOC”) or the Central Bank of Iran.

Exec. Order No. 13622, 77

Fed. Reg. 45,897, 45,899 (Aug. 2, 2012).

Similar restrictions

were also imposed on precious metal transactions with Iran.
U.S.C. § 8804(a)(1)(A).

22

Foreign financial institutions that

violated these restrictions could be prohibited from maintaining
correspondent accounts in the United States.

22 U.S.C. §

8804(c).
After the sanctions were implemented, plaintiffs allege
that the government of Iran conspired with Halkbank and third
parties to evade U.S. sanctions.

According to plaintiffs, NIOC

sold oil to Turkish purchasers, and the proceeds were deposited
at Halkbank.

At NIOC’s direction, the money would be

transferred within Halkbank to Halkbank correspondent accounts
belonging to an Iranian bank.

The Iranian bank would then order

the money transferred from the Iranian bank’s Halkbank account
to a Halkbank account belonging to a shell company.

After the

money had been transferred to the shell company, a confederate
would use the shell company’s funds to purchase gold in Turkey,
export the gold to Dubai, sell the gold in Dubai, and deposit
the proceeds in Iranian accounts at banks based in Dubai.

Iran

could then use the funds in the Dubai accounts to make
international payments.

According to the plaintiffs, over $900

million in funds were derived from these fraudulent transactions

20

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 21 of 36

and directed through correspondent accounts at U.S. financial
institutions between December 2012 and October 2013.

At least

some of these funds passed through accounts at banks based in
New York.

Even after stricter U.S. sanctions were implemented

in February 2013, Iran continued to make fraudulent transactions
via Halkbank, but, with Halkbank’s assistance, falsely
represented that the transactions involved the purchase of food,
as food purchases were not covered by U.S. sanctions.

Halkbank

retained hundreds of millions of dollars in payment for its role
in the scheme.
In 2016, Reza Zarrab, a participant in the scheme, was
arrested upon attempting to enter the United States and charged
with several crimes in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, including conspiracy to defraud
the United States, conspiracy to violate the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, conspiracy to commit bank fraud,
and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
Zarrab et al., No. 15 Cr. 867(RMB).

United States v.

In 2017, Mehmet Atilla,

deputy general manager of Halkbank, was arrested and charged
with similar crimes.

Zarrab pleaded guilty, while Atilla was

convicted by a jury after trial in 2018 and was sentenced to 32
months in prison.

Halkbank general manager Suleyman Aslan and

21

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 22 of 36

another Halkbank employee, Levent Balkan, were also indicted and
remain fugitives.
In 2019, Halkbank itself was indicted in the Southern
District of New York.

The district court has denied Halkbank’s

motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds of foreign
sovereign immunity.
appeal.

The denial of the motion to dismiss is on

United States v. Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S., No. 20-3499

(2d Cir.).
III. Procedural History
On March 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their complaint
under seal.

On July 1, the plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion

for a temporary restraining order and for an order of attachment
pursuant to Rule 64, Fed. R. Civ. P. and N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 6210.
This Court granted the temporary restraining order later that
day, ordered the plaintiffs to post a bond of $100,000 pursuant
to Rule 65, Fed R. Civ. P., and ordered the plaintiffs to serve
Halkbank’s criminal defense counsel and registered process agent
with the relevant filings.

The case was unsealed on July 16,

and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

With permission,

the plaintiffs filed the SAC on August 14.
The SAC asserts four causes of action.

First, it brings a

claim for rescission and turnover of fraudulent conveyances,

22

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 23 of 36

pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law § 273-a. 2

Second, it brings a

claim for rescission and turnover of fraudulent conveyances made
with actual intent, pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law § 276.
Third, it brings a claim for turnover under N.Y. C.P.L.R. §
5225.

Finally, it seeks turnover pursuant to the Terrorism Risk

Insurance Act, § 201(A), 28 U.S.C. § 1610(f)(1)(A).
On September 10, this Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion
for attachment and vacated the temporary restraining order it
had issued in July.
the SAC.

On September 25, Halkbank moved to dismiss

The motion became fully submitted on December 16,

2020.
Discussion
Halkbank has moved to dismiss on several grounds.

Halkbank

argues that it is entitled to sovereign immunity as an agency or
instrumentality of Turkey under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1604, requiring dismissal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Fed. R.
Civ. P.; that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over

On April 4, 2020, after the filing of the initial complaint in
this action, a new version of New York’s fraudulent conveyance
statute took effect. Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, 2019
Sess. Law News of N.Y. Ch. 580 (A. 5622)(McKinney’s). Since the
new statute “shall not apply to a transfer made” before its
effective date, id. at § 7, references to the New York
fraudulent conveyance statute in this Opinion are to the version
that was in effect prior to April 4, 2020.
2

23

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 24 of 36

Halkbank, requiring dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), Fed. R.
Civ. P.; that this Court should dismiss pursuant to the doctrine
of forum non conveniens; and that the Court is obligated to
dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),
Fed. R. Civ. P.
Three of these arguments present threshold issues of
jurisdiction.

“A federal court has leeway to choose among

threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits.”
Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S.
422, 431 (2007) (citation omitted).
such threshold ground.

Forum non conveniens is one

As such, a district court “may dispose

of an action by a forum non conveniens dismissal, bypassing
questions of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, when
considerations of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so
warrant.”

Id. at 432.

For the reasons discussed below, this

action is dismissed based on the doctrine of forum non
conveniens.
Halkbank argues that this case should be litigated in
Turkey.

The Second Circuit has set forth a three-part test for

evaluating motions to dismiss on the basis of forum non
conveniens.

The first step requires a court to “determine[] the

degree of deference properly accorded the plaintiff's choice of
forum.”

Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., 416 F.3d

24

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 25 of 36

146, 153 (2d Cir. 2005).

The second part of the analysis

involves “consider[ing] whether the alternative forum proposed
by the defendants is adequate to adjudicate the parties'
dispute.”

Id.

“Finally, at step three, a court balances the

private and public interests implicated in the choice of forum.”
Id.

District courts have “broad discretion” in evaluating and

weighing these factors.

Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp.,

274 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir. 2001) (en banc) (citation omitted).
Here, these factors weigh in favor of dismissing the complaint
on the grounds of forum non conveniens.
I.

Deference to the Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum
“[T]here is ordinarily a strong presumption in favor of the

plaintiff’s choice of forum.”
U.S. 235, 265-66 (1981).

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454

But the strength of that presumption

can “var[y] with the circumstances.”

Iragorri, 274 F.2d at 71.

The Second Circuit has instructed that the strength of the
presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice of forum “moves
‘on a sliding scale’ depending on the degree of convenience
reflected by the choice in a given case.”
154 (quoting Iragorri, 274 F.3d at 71).

Norex, 416 F.3d at
Courts are instructed

to give greater deference to the plaintiff’s choice when “it
appears that . . . [the] choice of forum has been dictated by
reasons that the law recognizes as valid,” such as genuine
considerations of convenience and “the plaintiff’s or the
25

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 26 of 36

lawsuit’s bona fide connection to the United States.”

Iragorri,

274 F.3d at 71-72.
The deference analysis ultimately depends on “the totality
of circumstances supporting a plaintiff’s choice of forum,”
Norex, 416 F.3d 154, but the Second Circuit has set forth
factors to guide a district court’s determination of the
appropriate level of deference.

A district court should

consider “the convenience of the plaintiff's residence in
relation to the chosen forum, the availability of witnesses or
evidence to the forum district, the defendant's amenability to
suit in the forum district, the availability of appropriate
legal assistance, and other reasons relating to convenience or
expense.”

Iragorri, 274 F.3d at 72.

By contrast, a court

should give little deference when the plaintiff’s choice of
forum is motivated by “attempts to win a tactical advantage
resulting from local laws that favor the plaintiff's case, the
habitual generosity of juries in the United States or in the
forum district, the plaintiff's popularity or the defendant's
unpopularity in the region, or the inconvenience and expense to
the defendant resulting from litigation in that forum.”

Id.

Here, the plaintiffs’ choice of forum is entitled to
minimal deference.
foreign.

Most of the plaintiffs in this action are

There is “little reason to assume that [a U.S. forum]

26

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 27 of 36

is convenient for a foreign plaintiff.”
71.

Iragorri, 274 F.3d at

While some of the plaintiffs are U.S. residents, and nine

reside in New York state, the plaintiffs’ choice of forum in
cases where the U.S. resident plaintiffs are significantly
outnumbered by foreign plaintiffs is entitled to less deference.
Additionally, the underlying facts in this litigation involve
terrorist attacks in foreign countries and an alleged fraudulent
scheme orchestrated primarily in Turkey.

The series of

judgments were entered in the District of Columbia.

In sum,

there is little, if any, connection between this action and this
forum.

This lack of connection between the plaintiffs and the

subject matter of the litigation on the one hand, and the forum
on the other, weighs against deferring to plaintiffs’ choice of
forum.
Considering the remaining Iragorri factors, it appears that
almost all of the relevant evidence is located in Turkey.

Much

of the relevant documentary evidence is in the custody of
Halkbank, and the documents are stored in Turkey and written in
Turkish.

Similarly, many of the potentially relevant witnesses

are Halkbank employees, and those employees are in Turkey.
Those witnesses are outside the subpoena power of this Court.
The difficulty of conducting discovery in this litigation if it
continues in the United States weighs against deference to the

27

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 28 of 36

plaintiffs’ choice.

Further, Iragorri instructs courts to

consider the amenability of the defendant to suit in the forum
district.

It is unclear if Halkbank is even amenable to suit in

the United States, as it has contested jurisdiction in both this
case and the criminal case.
The plaintiffs stress that the Halkbank scheme permitted
the funds to move through New York financial institutions
without seizure either by the U.S. Government or by the
plaintiffs as judgment creditors.

They emphasize that Halkbank

representatives repeatedly lied to U.S. bank and government
officials to effect transfers of funds through New York.
Balancing all of the relevant factors, the plaintiffs’ choice of
forum is not entitled to substantial deference, but it is
entitled to some, albeit minimal, deference.
II.

Turkey as an Adequate Alternative Forum
“To secure dismissal of an action on grounds of forum non

conveniens, a movant must demonstrate the availability of an
adequate alternative forum.”

Norex, 416 F.3d 157.

The parties

dispute whether a Turkish court can provide an adequate
alternative forum for this dispute.
“A forum in which defendants are amenable to service of
process and which permits litigation of the dispute is generally
adequate.”

Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163, 189 (2d
28

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 29 of 36

Cir. 2009).

The test is satisfied if there is some available

means of litigating the dispute in the alternative forum.
“[T]he availability of an adequate alternative forum does not
depend on the existence of the identical cause of action in the
other forum, nor on identical remedies.”

Norex, 416 F.3d 158

(citation omitted).
The plaintiffs do not dispute that Halkbank is amenable to
service of process in Turkey.

Its Chief Legal Advisor has

declared that Halkbank will accept service in Turkey and will
accept an appropriate Turkish court’s exercise of personal
jurisdiction.

“An agreement by the defendant to submit to the

jurisdiction of the foreign forum can generally satisfy the
alternative forum requirement.”

Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., 303

F.3d 470, 477 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
The plaintiffs primarily argue that they cannot obtain
relief in Turkey because Turkish courts will not recognize their
U.S. default judgments on the grounds that those judgments award
punitive damages against Iran (a foreign sovereign) stemming
from conduct occurring in a third country.

Halkbank disputes

this assertion, and the parties have offered competing expert
declarations on the amenability of the Turkish courts to
plaintiffs’ claims. 3
The parties’ declarations regarding Turkish law are properly
considered upon a motion to dismiss. The issue of whether
3

29

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 30 of 36

Halkbank and its experts have persuasively demonstrated
several means by which the plaintiffs may recover from Halkbank
under Turkish law for the conduct alleged in the complaint.
These Turkish causes of action are not contingent on the
recognition of the plaintiffs’ U.S. judgments by Turkish courts,
and in any event, Halkbank and its experts have shown that
plaintiffs’ U.S. judgments may be recognized in Turkey.

This

showing by Halkbank is sufficient to permit a finding that
Turkey is an adequate alternative forum. 4
Next, while the plaintiffs acknowledge that U.S. courts
have previously found that Turkey’s legal system provides an

plaintiffs can secure relief in a Turkish court presents
questions of foreign law, and a district court may determine
questions of foreign law by “consider[ing] any relevant material
or source.” Fed R. Civ. P. 44.1. In doing so, a court may
weigh the relative “persuasive force of the opinions” expressed
by competing experts. Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian
Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82, 92 (2d Cir. 1998).
The analysis presented by the Halkbank experts was far more
persuasive than that from the plaintiffs’ expert. Halkbank
presented the declarations of two Turkish law professors who
specialize in Turkish property law and the law of foreign
judgments. By contrast, the background of the plaintiffs’
expert is primarily in Turkish intellectual property law. In
addition to possessing more impressive credentials in relevant
areas of Turkish law, the Halkbank experts’ statements were far
more detailed and supported by more extensive citations and
discussion. Plaintiffs’ expert declaration focused on the
enforcement of plaintiffs’ U.S. judgments against Iran in
Turkey, while Halkbank’s expert declarations addressed in detail
both the enforcement of judgments and the equally relevant issue
of how Halkbank’s alleged conduct could give rise to liability
to the plaintiffs under Turkish law.
4

30

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 31 of 36

adequate forum for resolution of civil disputes, they argue that
the situation in Turkey has changed. 5

Plaintiffs argue that

Turkey is an inadequate forum because the high political
salience of the subject matter of this litigation in Turkey –the participation of a government-connected enterprise,
Halkbank, in a scheme to transfer Iran’s assets under cover of
darkness -- means that they are unlikely to receive a fair
hearing in Turkey.

This sort of argument is disfavored, as the

Second Circuit has held that “it is not the business of our
courts to assume the responsibility for supervising the
integrity of the judicial system of another sovereign nation.”
Blanco v. Banco Indus. de Venezuela, S.A., 997 F.2d 974, 982 (2d
Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

Plaintiffs describe efforts by

Turkish officials to interfere with criminal investigations into
Halkbank in both Turkey and the U.S.
serious and deserve attention.

These allegations are

If plaintiffs were to litigate

this matter in Turkey, however, the litigation would involve
Courts in this District and elsewhere have concluded that
Turkey is an adequate alternative forum in the forum non
conveniens context. See, e.g., Can v. Goodrich Pump & Engine
Control Systems, Inc., 711 F.Supp.2d 241, 258 (D. Conn. 2010);
Turedi v. Coca Cola Co., 460 F.Supp.2d 507, 523-26 (S.D.N.Y.
2006). Plaintiffs argue that political developments in Turkey
since a 2016 coup attempt have undermined the adequacy of the
Turkish judiciary, so these prior findings are irrelevant. But
even in the wake of these political developments, U.S. courts
have continued to hold that Turkey is an adequate alternative
forum. See, e.g., Roe v. Wyndham Worldwide, Inc., No. 18-1525RGA, 2020 WL 707371, at *5 (D. Del. Feb. 12, 2020).
5

31

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 32 of 36

Turkey’s civil court system rather than its criminal law
enforcement agencies.

Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding Turkish

law enforcement are therefore not sufficient to demonstrate that
the Turkish civil court system is an inadequate forum for
plaintiffs’ claims, especially given the Second Circuit’s
“reluctan[ce] to find foreign courts ‘corrupt’ or ‘biased.’”

In

re Arbitration between Monegasque De Reassurances S.A.M. v. Nak
Naftogaz of Ukraine, 311 F.3d 488, 499 (2d Cir. 2002).
III. Balancing the Private and Public Interests
Since the plaintiffs’ choice of forum is not entitled to
significant deference and Turkey is an adequate alternative
forum for this litigation, the final step of the forum non
conveniens analysis is the weighing of the relevant private and
public interest factors.

The Second Circuit has described the

private interest factors as including “the relative ease of
access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process
for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining
attendance of willing, witnesses; . . .

and all other practical

problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and
inexpensive.”

Iragorri, 274 F.3d at 73-74 (citation omitted).

Public interest factors “include administrative difficulties
associated with court congestion; the unfairness of imposing
jury duty on a community with no relation to the litigation; the
interest in having localized controversies decided at home; and
32

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 33 of 36

avoiding difficult problems in conflict of laws and the
application of foreign law.”

Aguinda, 303 F.3d at 480.

Here, the private interest factors weigh strongly in favor
of litigating this case in Turkey.

The underlying facts in this

litigation involve an alleged fraudulent scheme conducted in
large part by a Turkish bank and its Turkish employees in
Turkey.

The relevant evidence is largely in Turkey.

Apart from

Zarrab and Atilla, who are incarcerated in the United States for
conduct related to the scheme, the potentially relevant
witnesses are in Turkey or the surrounding region, as well.
These potential witnesses are beyond the subpoena power of this
Court.

Trying this case in the United States would not be easy,

expeditious, or inexpensive.
The plaintiffs take issue with very little of this
assessment.

They argue that U.S. prosecutors have possession of

relevant documentary evidence, but that does not make such
evidence accessible to civil litigants in the United States.
Plaintiffs also contend that “potential” witnesses will be
unable to enter Turkey.

The only potential witness identified

by the plaintiffs is a former Turkish law enforcement official
involved in an investigation into Halkbank who was allegedly
forced to flee Turkey.

Plaintiffs do not explain why the

testimony of this particular law enforcement official is

33

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 34 of 36

necessary.

Otherwise, the plaintiffs’ submission does not

contest that the witnesses to the alleged Halkbank scheme
largely reside in Turkey and are beyond this Court’s
jurisdiction.
The public interest factors also weigh heavily in favor of
litigating in Turkey.
this case and New York.

There is almost no connection between
Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial

in this action, and it would make little sense to burden a New
York court and jury with litigation of this action.

By

contrast, Turkey has a more significant interest in hearing this
action, which involves a significant Turkish financial
institution.
Additionally, this case presents a choice of law dispute,
which further weighs in favor of litigating in Turkey.

Halkbank

argues that, even if the litigation proceeds in this Court, New
York’s choice of law rules require the application of Turkish
law to the plaintiffs’ fraudulent conveyance claims.

The

plaintiffs contend that New York fraudulent conveyance law
applies.

The presence of this choice of law dispute and the

potential application of Turkish substantive law is a further
basis for dismissal, since “the public interest factors point
towards dismissal where the court would be required to untangle

34

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 35 of 36

problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.”
Reyno, 454 U.S. at 251 (citation omitted).
IV.

Conditions of Dismissal
Because the plaintiffs’ choice of forum commands minimal

deference, Turkey is an adequate alternative forum for this
action, and the private and public interest factors weigh
strongly in favor of dismissal, this action is dismissed on the
grounds of forum non conveniens.

In order to ensure that this

case is eventually heard on the merits in Turkey, however,
conditional dismissal is proper.

Blanco, 997 F.2d at 984

(“[F]orum non conveniens dismissals are often appropriately
conditioned to protect the party opposing dismissal.”)
Dismissal shall be conditioned on Halkbank’s agreement to accept
service in Turkey, submit to the jurisdiction of Turkish courts,
and waive any statute of limitations defense that may have
arisen since the filing of this action.

The parties shall

submit an agreement to litigate in Turkey in accordance with
these conditions.

A scheduling order accompanies this Opinion.

35

Case 1:20-cv-02648-DLC Document 77 Filed 02/16/21 Page 36 of 36

Conclusion
Halkbank’s September 25, 2020 motion to dismiss is
conditionally granted.
Dated:

New York, New York
February 16, 2021
____________________________
DENISE COTE
United States District Judge

36