Page:Bank Markazi v. Peterson SCOTUS slip opinion.pdf/12

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Cite as: 578 U. S. ____ (2016)

Opinion of the Court

der §8772, the District Court ordered the requested turnover. App. to Pet. for Cert. 109a.^[1]

In reaching its decision, the court reviewed the financial history of the assets and other record evidence showing that Bank Markazi owned the assets. See id., at 111a–113a, and n. 17. Since at least early 2008, the court recounted, the bond assets have been held in a New York account at Citibank directly controlled by Clearstream Banking, S. A. (Clearstream), a Luxembourg-based company that serves “as an intermediary between financial institutions worldwide.” Id., at 56a–57a (internal quotation makes omitted). Initially, Clearstream held the assets for Bank Markazi and deposited interest earned on the bonds into Bank Markazi’s Clearstream account. At some point in 2008, Bank Markazi instructed Clearstream to position another intermediary—Banca UBAE, S.p.A., an Italian bank—between the bonds and Bank Markazi. Id., at 58a–59a. Thereafter, Clearstream deposited interest payments in UBAE’s account, which UBAE then remitted to Bank Markazi. Id., at 60a–61a.^[2]

Resisting turnover of the bond assets, Bank Markazi and Clearstream, as the District Court observed, “filled

TRIA, respondents sought turnover pursuant to the FSIA’s terrorism judgment execution provisions. See Second Amended Complaint in No. 10–CIV–4518 (SDNY), pp. 27, 35–36; supra, at 3–4, and n. 2.

↑ In April 2012, the last of the bonds matured, leaving only “cash associated with the bonds” still restrained in the New York bank account. App. to Pet. for Cert. 61a.
↑ Citibank is a “neutral stakeholder,” seeking only “resolution of ownership of [the] funds.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 54a (internal quotation marks omitted). UBAE did not contest turnover of the $1.75 billion in assets at issue here (though it disputed the District Court’s personal jurisdiction in anticipation of other execution claims not now before us). See Memorandum of Law in Support of Banca UBAE, S.p.A.’s Opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in No. 10–CIV–4518 (SDNY), pp. 1–2.

[1] In April 2012, the last of the bonds matured, leaving only “cash associated with the bonds” still restrained in the New York bank account. App. to Pet. for Cert. 61a.

[2] Citibank is a “neutral stakeholder,” seeking only “resolution of ownership of [the] funds.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 54a (internal quotation marks omitted). UBAE did not contest turnover of the $1.75 billion in assets at issue here (though it disputed the District Court’s personal jurisdiction in anticipation of other execution claims not now before us). See Memorandum of Law in Support of Banca UBAE, S.p.A.’s Opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in No. 10–CIV–4518 (SDNY), pp. 1–2.

[1]

[2]