Whether a foreign defendant who knowingly, willfully, and illegally moved or permitted billions of dollars to be moved through the U.S. financial system on behalf of designated and sanctioned banks is subject to Rule 4(k)(2) personal jurisdiction for claims of aiding and abetting an act of international terrorism that arose out of the provision of such funds

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Under Section 2333 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act “JASTA”), U.S. nationals injured or killed by “an act of international terrorism” that is “committed, planned, or authorized by” a designated foreign terrorist organization may sue any person who “aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism,” and recover treble damages. 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a), (d)(2). The questions presented in this case are: 1. Whether a foreign defendant who knowingly, willfully, and illegally moved or permitted billions of dollars to be moved through the U.S. financial system on behalf of designated and sanctioned banks is subject to Rule 4(k)(2) personal jurisdiction for claims of aiding and abetting an act of international terrorism that arose out of the provision of such funds. 2. Under this Court’s analysis in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 143 S. Ct. 1206 (2028), does HSBC’s intentional provision of more than nineteen billion dollars in illegal banking services to high risk and sanctioned banks, with known ties to al-Qaeda, support a JASTA cause of action for sophisticated attacks committed by al-Qaeda during the time of the illegal banking activities? u PARTIES INVOLVED The parties involved in this case are Respondents HSBC Holdings PLC (“HSBC”), HSBC Bank PLC (“HBEU”), HSBC Bank USAN.A. (““HBUS”), and HSBC North America Holdings, Inc. (“HBNA”), who were the appellees below, and Petitioners Dana Marie Bernhardt, Individually, and as the Administratrix of The Estate of Jeremy Wise, Ethan Prusinksi, Mary Lee Wise, Mary Heather Wise, Mindylou Paresi, Individually, and as the Administratrix Of The Estate Of Dane Paresi, Elizabeth Santina Paresi, Alexandra Vandenbroek, Janet Paresi, Terry Paresi, and Santina Cartisser (collectively referred to as “Petitioners”), who were the appellants below. The Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”) was also a defendant before the trial court in this matter but is not party to this appeal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).