Representative Matters
Parsons v. Palestinian Authority, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 2011
Successfully briefed and argued an appeal to the DC Circuit regarding the amount of evidence necessary to prevail against a motion for summary judgment. The District Court had granted the Palestinian Authority's Motion for Summary Judgment but the Court of Appeals reversed in favor of Plaintiffs, and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.
"Parsons v. Palestinian Authority, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16809 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 5, 2011)."
Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 2011
Successfully briefed and argued several issues on appeal to the DC Circuit, including the sufficiency of service of the complaint and summons on the defendant foreign sovereign, the burden of proof in a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) context and the trial courtŐs subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals sided with Plaintiffs; affirming the final judgment for $412,909,857.00 in all respects.
"Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10338 (D.C. Cir. May 20, 2011). "
Litle v. Arab Bank, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 2010
Co-counsel for over one hundred and fifty plaintiffs in an ongoing action against a Jordanian Bank for the facilitation of acts of international terrorism and provision of material support to various terrorist groups involved in the Second Intifada. See Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 384 F. Supp. 2d 571 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). The recent major ruling by the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions predicated upon the Bank's refusal to produce key evidence is a major victory for Plaintiffs:
"For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motion for sanctions is GRANTED. At trial, the jury will be instructed that, based on defendant's failure to produce documents, it may, but is not required to, infer: (1) that defendant provided financial services to organizations designated by the United States as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and to individuals affiliated with the FTOs; (2) that defendant processed and distributed payments on behalf of the Saudi Committee to terrorists, including those affiliated with named terrorist organizations and those who are unaffiliated, their relatives, or representatives; and (3) that defendant did these acts knowingly and purposefully. In addition, (4) defendant is precluded from making any argument or offering any evidence regarding its state *58 of mind or any other issue that would find proof or refutation in withheld documents; (5) all requests for admissions in plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Admissions which defendant refused to answer on foreign bank secrecy grounds are deemed admitted, and any documents referred to in those requests, which plaintiffs obtained from sources other than defendant, are deemed authentic and are admissible as such at trial; and (6) defendant is prohibited from introducing in pre-trial motions or at trial any evidence withheld on foreign bank secrecy grounds. Finally, plaintiffs are awarded attorneys' fees and costs incurred as a result of defendant's production failures and the resulting sanctions litigation."
"Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, CA 04-2799, 2010 United States. Dist. LEXIS 71543 at *57-58 (E.D.N.Y. July 12, 2010)."
Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, pending before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit, 2010
Co-counsel representing two families who each lost a family member to Syrian state-sponsored Al Qeada in Iraq during horrific beheadings in 2004. Final judgment awarded for $412,909,857.00. Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 580 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2008). The Court recently reaffirmed that Syria was properly served with notice of the lawsuit.
Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 646 F. Supp. 2d 79 (D.D.C. 2009)."
Baker v. Syrian Arab Republic, pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 2010
Co-counsel for the United States victims and their family members killed and injured in the brutal 1985 terrorist hijacking of EgyptAir Flight 648. Libyan agents forced a large airliner to land in Malta and then held the crew and passengers hostage until their demands were met. The Libyan agents started shooting one Israeli or American passenger in the head and dumping their bodies onto the tarmac once every 15 minutes until they received fuel so they could fly to Libya. The Court recently held a evidentiary hearing where counsel for Plaintiffs' were required to prove the case in accord with 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e).
"Baker v. Syrian Arab Republic, 2006 United States. Dist. LEXIS 8309"
Certain Underwriters v. Syrian Arab Republic, pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 2010
Co-counsel for the, mostly English, reinsurance companies that reinsured the aircraft hull destroyed during the brutal 1985 terrorist hijacking of EgyptAir Flight 648. The Court recently held a evidentiary hearing where counsel for Plaintiffs were required to prove the case in accord with 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e).
Epitome Consulting & Information Technology Private Limited, 2010
U.S. representative and consultant for Epitome, a professional services company based in Bangalore, India. Epitome provides high quality and low-cost financial, legal, E-discovery, data management, document review, consulting, healthcare, insurance and technology services using their "insourcing"s business model--by working directly with clients to devise an individualized method to address their concerns. Epitome has been in business for over a decade and was jointly established by respected American and Indian professionals with experience and expertise among varied fields, from accounting to information technology.
United States-Libya Claims Settlement Agreement, 2008
As co-counsel for dozens of victims of Libyan state-sponsored terrorism, played a key role in the negotiations among the United States. Department of State, members of Congress and the Libyan government, to structure all United States litigation arising from acts of Libyan terrorism. This led to the passage of The Libyan Claims Resolution Act in 2008, which compensated the majority of our clients who were victims of Libyan state sponsored terrorism. Several cases remain unresolved however, which may eventually result in litigation against the United States for the unconstitutional deprivation of property of our clients.
Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, United States. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2007
Chief Judge Royce Lamberth awarded compensatory damages (punitive damages were not available at the time) in the amount of $ 2,656,944,877.00 against the Islamic Republic of Iran for the death of over two hundred and forty United States servicemen as a result of Iranian state-sponsored terrorism bombing at the Beirut Marine barracks in 1983.
"Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 2d 25, 37 (D.D.C. 2007)."
Owens v. Republic of Sudan, pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 2006
Co-counsel for the United States victims and their family members killed and injured in the two massive bombings that destroyed the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Prior to the embassy bombings, Al Qaeda spent several years inside the Sudan expanding its organization, trainings its terrorists and acquiring unprecedented reach and lethality with the knowledge, support and participation of the Sudanese government.
"Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 412 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2006) and Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2005)."
Beecham v. Socialist Peoples' Arab Jamahiriya United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 2005
Successfully briefed and argued an issue of appellate jurisdiction before the DC Circuit. The Libyan government argued a position that would have led to a vast expansion of foreign governments' ability to use the collateral order doctrine appeal. We argued the Libyan government could base an appeal on the underlying order. The D.C. Circuit agreed with our position.
"Beecham v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 424 F.3d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 2005)."
September 11th Victims Compensation Fund
Attorneys for the Perles Law Firm, PC represented several clients before the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund. The firm filed claims on behalf of our clients and then represented the clients during hearings before the Special Master. The hearings were conducted after the firm appealed initial determinations by the Victims Fund.
National Information Communication Technology Strategy (NICTS), 2003
The joint project of the Government of Azerbaijan and United Nations Development Programme "National Information Communication Technology Strategy" (NICTS) aims to make ICT advantages accessible to governmental/nongovernmental institutions in Azerbaijan in order to assist this country's overall development. Within the framework of this project, the Perles Law Firm is providing legal assessment of the draft laws establishing a legislative base for Azerbaijan's ICT sector.
Jenco v. Islamic Republic of Iran, United States. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2001
Counsel for plaintiffs in a successful action against a foreign state for the hostage taking and torture of a United States national as a result of state-sponsored terrorism. Final judgment for $314,640,000.
Counsel for plaintiff in a successful action against a foreign state for the death of two United States national as a result of state-sponsored terrorism. Final judgment for $327,161,002.
"Eisenfeld v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 172 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2000)."
Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, United States. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1998
Counsel for plaintiff in the first successful action against a foreign state for the death of a United States national as a result of state-sponsored terrorism.
"Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1998)."
Crist v. Republic of Turkey, United States. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1997
Successfully defended the Republic of Turkey in an action alleging that North Cypriot property owned by Greek Cypriot-Americans was expropriated by Turkey's 1974 invasion of Cyprus.
"Crist v. Republic of Turk., 995 F. Supp. 5 (D.D.C. 1998)."
Pacific Consolidated Industries v. Ministry of National Defense of the Republic of Turkey, United States. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1996
Successfully defended the Republic of Turkey in an action alleging the violation of a forum selection clause in a foreign military procurement contract.
Counsel for plaintiff in the first ultimately successful action by an American Holocaust survivor against Germany for reparations arising from detention in concentration camps, slave labor in German war effort, and personal injury. While the D.C Circuit reversed the lower court’s denial of the Federal Republic of Germany’s motion to dismiss on subject matter jurisdiction, Mr. Perles’ client ultimately received a settlement for his injuries and the dissenting opinion by Judge Patricia Wald added to the momentum behind enacting 28 U.S.C § 1605(a)(7), the exception for subject matter jurisdiction over state-sponsors of terrorism.
"Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, 26 F.3d 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1994)."
Dixilyn Drilling v. Mobile Nigeria Producing, Ltd and the Nigerian National Petroleum Co.,
Conducted preliminary arbitration proceedings and settlement negotiations in Nigeria in a multi-forum contract dispute concerning the lease of an offshore drilling platform.
Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society, United States. Supreme Court, 1986
Counsel for plaintiff in the successful co-defense with the United States Department of Justice in an action challenging the Executive's foreign affairs discretion to enter into certain agreements between the governments of the United States and Japan.
"Japan Whaling Assoc. v. American Cetacean Soc., 478 United States. 221 (United States. 1986)."
