The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Virginia M. Kendall
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Frances Gates, individually and as administrator for the estate of Olin Eugene Armstrong, Pati Hensley, Sara Hensley and Jan Smith (together "Plaintiffs" or "Gates Plaintiffs") move for turnover of assets in the form of electronic funds transfers ("EFTs") believed to belong to the Banque Centrale de Syrie ("BCS") and presently held in two intermediary bank accounts located at JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("JPMCB"). In response to this motion, JPMCB filed a complaint for interpleader, Case No. 2983 (the "JPMCB Interpleader Complaint"), which complaint the Gates Plaintiffs move to dismiss. Plaintiffs' Motion for Turnover (the "EFT Turnover Motion") is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice and Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss the JPMCB Interpleader Complaint is granted in part and denied in part.
The Gates Plaintiffs initiated this case on December 8, 2011 when they registered their $412,909,587 judgment against the Syrian Arab Republic ("Syria") in this district. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered the $412,909,587 judgment on September 26, 2008 as compensation to the Gates Plaintiffs for Syria's acts of state-sponsored terrorism that facilitated the kidnapping, torture, and murder-by-beheading of Americans Olin Eugene "Jack" Armstrong and Jack L. Hensley in 2004. The Gates plaintiffs acquired this judgment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's ("FSIA") "terrorism exception," 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, and the District of Columbia Circuit Court affirmed that judgment on May 20, 2011. See Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 646 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Syria filed an appearance and contested the $412,909,587 judgment before the D.C. Circuit Court.
On August 23, 2011, the D.C. District Court issued an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c), finding that a reasonable period of time had elapsed from the entry of final judgment and notice to Syria and therefore Plaintiffs were authorized to enforce the court's judgment. After the Gates Plaintiffs registered their judgment in this district, this Court*fn1 issued a third-party citation to discover assets to JPMCB (the "Citation"). The Gates Plaintiffs served the Citation on a JPMCB bank branch in Elgin, Illinois. Pursuant to a protective order, JPMCB answered the Citation and indicated that JPMCB held accounts that might be responsive to the Citation. Based on JPMCB's answer to the Citation, the Gates Plaintiffs filed two motions for turnover against JPMCB, one related to certain third-party funds held at JPMCB and owned by AT&T, Inc. that were destined for a Syrian telecommunications company (the "First AT&T Turnover Motion") and the second - the EFT Turnover Motion that is the subject of this Opinion - related to certain EFTs that involved the Banque Central de Syrie but are presently held by JPMCB in its capacity as intermediary bank.
On February 13, 2012, six days after the Gates plaintiffs filed the First AT&T Turnover Motion, attorneys for another group of plaintiffs (the "Baker Plaintiffs"), who also held a judgment against Syria and had registered that judgment in this district, Baker v. Syrian Arab Republic, 11 C 8913, filed a motion to intervene in this matter. The Baker Plaintiffs argued that they should be allowed to intervene in the Gates case as a matter of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) because their interest in any Syrian funds held by Chase was superior to the Gates plaintiffs' interest in those funds. In a February 15, 2012 order, this Court granted the Baker Plaintiffs' permissive intervention into this case pursuant to Rule 24(b)(1)(B). Shortly after allowing the Baker Plaintiffs to intervene in this case, for purposes of judicial economy and with the agreement of the district court in this case, case 11 C 8913 was transferred to this Court's docket. Accordingly, the Gates and Baker cases, 11 C 8715 and 11 C 8913 respectively, are now assigned to this Court.
On March 7, 2012, this Court issued an opinion determining that the Gates Plaintiffs had first-priority rights to any Syrian funds at issue in the first motion for turnover, and determined that AT&T, Inc., the owner of the account at issue in the First AT&T Turnover Motion, was the property party to whom a motion should be directed, and therefore denied the First AT&T Turnover Motion with leave to refile. The Gates Plaintiffs refiled the motion, this time directed at AT&T (the "Second AT&T Turnover Motion" Docket No. 77) on March 9, 2012.
On March 13, 2012, AT&T filed a related complaint for interpleader (Case No. 12-1836, the "AT&T Interpleader Complaint") to determine the relative priority of the rights of all parties with respect to the funds contained in the accounts at issue in the Second AT&T Turnover Motion. On April 23, 2012, JPMCB filed the JPMCB Interpleader Complaint to determine the relative priority of the rights of all parties with respect to the funds at issue in the EFT Turnover Motion. Both cases being related to the Gates and Baker cases, the AT&T Interpleader Complaint and the JPMCB Interpleader Complaint were consolidated with the Gates and Baker cases. The Gates Plaintiffs moved to dismiss both interpleader actions.
On August 30, 2012, these related cases transferred to this Court. On September 29, 2012, this Court granted the Second AT&T Turnover Motion and, subject to agreement by the parties on the terms of a turnover order, granted the motion to dismiss the AT&T Interpleader Complaint. The Baker Parties filed a motion to reconsider the March 7, 2012 order on grounds of personal jurisdiction over the accounts at issue in the First and Second AT&T Turnover Motions. Today, this Court denied the motion to reconsider. The Court now turns to the pending EFT Turnover Motion and related motion to dismiss the JPMCB Interpleader Complaint.
B. The EFT Turnover Motion
Plaintiffs served the Citation on JPMCB on December 8, 2011. JPMCB returned the Citation and indicated that it had two accounts, each held in the role of "Intermediary Bank" and each containing the proceeds of electronic funds transfers in which BCS was in some way involved. The two accounts (collectively the "EFTs") total roughly $76 million. JPMCB also revealed a simple deposit account in the name of BCS (the "Deposit Account") containing $419 as of the time of the citation. The Gates Plaintiffs seek turnover of the EFTs and the Deposit Account pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g) and § 201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act ("TRIA") because BCS is an "agency or instrumentality" of Syria. JPMCB does not object to the Gates Plaintiffs' legal theory that certain assets may be turned over pursuant to one or both of these statutes. With respect to these particular accounts, however, JPMCB objects to the turnover of the EFTs and the Deposit Account on three grounds: (1) the EFTs are held by JPMCB as an "Intermediary Bank" and as such may be governed by the Uniform Commercial Code Section 4A rather than federal law and, if so, are not subject to execution under either 28 U.S.C. § 1610 or TRIA § 201; (2) the EFTs and the Deposit Account are potentially assets of a central bank and therefore may be immune from execution under
28 U.S.C. § 1610 and TRIA § 201; and (3) all parties to the EFTs have not received notice or a chance to interplead their rights to the EFTs.
A. Turnover of assets of BCS under 28 U.S.C. §1610(g) and TRIA § 201
Section 1610(g) of the FSIA and Section 201 of the TRIA each permit attachment against assets of a foreign state, or an agency or instrumentality of that foreign state, in aid of execution of a judgment obtained under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A. Section 1610(g) states:
(1) In general. Subject to paragraph (3), the property of a foreign state against which a judgment is entered under section 1605A, and the property of an agency or instrumentality of such a state, including property that is a separate juridical entity or is an interest held directly or indirectly in a separate juridical entity, is subject to attachment in aid of execution, and execution, upon that judgment as provided in this section, regardless of--
(A) the level of economic control over the property by the government ...