Supreme Court rejects Turkish bank’s arguments in Iran case
U.S. Court News
The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a Turkish bank’s main arguments for dismissing a lawsuit accusing it of helping Iran evade U.S. sanctions, but the court sent the case back for additional review.
Halkbank, a bank owned by Turkey, had argued that a federal law, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, gave foreign states absolute immunity from criminal prosecution in U.S. courts. It also said federal courts don’t have jurisdiction to oversee the case.
“We disagree with Halkbank on both points,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for himself and six of his eight colleagues.
Still, Kavanaugh said the case should go back to a lower court for further review. He said the lower court “did not fully consider the various arguments regarding common-law immunity that the parties press in this Court.”
The federal government says the bank “participated in the largest-known conspiracy to evade the United States’ economic sanctions on Iran,” laundering billions of dollars worth of Iranian oil and natural gas proceeds. The government says that working with an Iranian-Turkish businessman, the bank created ways for Iran to access the funds — including shipments of gold and fake food shipments. The government says that the schemes “freed up approximately $20 billion of restricted Iranian funds.”
The businessman, Reza Zarrab, has pleaded guilty.
The case was initiated under the Trump administration but was continued by the Biden administration.
The case is Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, 21-1450.
Related listings
-
Kansas high court signals continued abortion rights support
U.S. Court News 03/22/2023Kansas’ highest court signaled Monday that it still considers access to abortion a “fundamental” right under the state constitution, as an attorney for the state argued that a decisive statewide vote last year affirming abortion rig...
-
Supreme Court remembering Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
U.S. Court News 03/17/2023Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a champion for women’s rights whose death ahead of the 2020 election allowed the Supreme Court to become more conservative, will be remembered during ceremonies Friday at the high court.Ginsburg, who served as a jus...
-
Executive gets 15 months in prison in doomed nuclear project
U.S. Court News 03/12/2023A former executive utility who gave rosy projections on the progress of two nuclear power plants in South Carolina while they were hopelessly behind will spend 15 months in prison for the doomed project that cost ratepayers billions of dollars.Ex-SCA...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.