Last January, we called the U.S. Supreme Court’s January 2014 ruling in Daimler v. Bauman “a 70-year flood,” and wondered what precincts of law were in its path. In Daimler, the justices drastically narrowed the standard for general jurisdiction, theoretically making it harder for plaintiffs to bring all kinds of claims against foreign defendants in U.S. courts. As the ruling neared its second birthday, I vainly scanned our Litigation Department of the Year briefs for signs of flood damage. But the area most affected was staring me right in the face: terror litigation.
The Global Lawyer shouted from the rooftops last August when Arab Bank settled allegations that it funded intifada attacks for a sum likely to exceed $1 billion. So when a similar suit against Bank of China settled with a whisper weeks later, I assumed that the Chinese bankers did a better job of keeping their big number secret.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
