‘We Want to Bankrupt Terrorism’

Hundreds of families of 9-11 victims have joined lawsuits filed against the World Trade Center’s owner, the Sudanese government and even some members of Saudi Arabia’s royal family

Newsweek website
September 13, 2002
http://www.msnbc.com/news/807828.asp

The September 11 anniversary was not only a time of mourning and reflection for the family members of the estimated 3,000 victims killed in last year’s terrorist attacks, but the deadline for them to file a lawsuit against the owner of the World Trade Center, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. More than 700 relatives, along with some who were injured in the attacks, did so this week.

Many of them had decided to join the lawsuit only after a federal judge ruled last week that any suits filed against the Port Authority could be left dormant while relatives decided whether to go ahead with their legal action or instead join the federal Victim Compensation Fund (initially they had been asked to choose one or the other by the one-year anniversary). More than three times as many relatives of victims of the attacks have also joined a separate lawsuit against the Sudanese government, three members of Saudi Arabia’s royalty, and Saudi banks and charities for allegedly funding Osama bin Laden’s terror network and enabling the attacks. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke with Sanford Rubenstein, who is representing dozens of plaintiffs in both the suits about what the families and other victims of the attacks are hoping to accomplish in court.

NEWSWEEK: Why did these families wait so long to sue the Port Authority?

Sanford Rubenstein: Most of them were between a rock and hard place. They didn’t know whether to sue, and they were afraid that if they did they would lose their right to file a claim with the Victim Compensation Fund. The judge’s decision will permit them to go to the fund if they chose to do so and allow them to file the lawsuit against the Port Authority in the meantime, which will lie dormant unless or until they choose to proceed. What most of them were waiting for was an economic analysis. For example, Cantor Fitzgerald hired someone to calculate the economic loss of those who were killed. But they said they couldn’t have the analyses done in time. This judge’s decision gave the families more time to make a decision.

NEWSWEEK: What were the primary concerns of those you represent in this lawsuit?

Sanford Rubenstein: They had a really tough decision to make in the first place—without being told they must decide to pursue one course of action or another [by the one-year anniversary]. A lawsuit will take a considerable amount of time and there is no certainty of a victory. These people had to make a really difficult decision that would affect them and their families for the rest of their lives. As for those who were injured, a lot of them were also suffering psychologically because of the mental stress. These are people who were severely injured and then they were also suffering from seeing the body parts or losing people they knew.

NEWSWEEK: Do they intend to proceed with the suit against the Port Authority or just to keep their options open?

Sanford Rubenstein: At this point they are happy to have a moment of breathing room and the time to make a decision.

NEWSWEEK: Could other defendants be named in these suits?

Sanford Rubenstein: They can still sue others like security companies and airlines because the statutes on those, I believe, is three years. We’re still investigating, of course, but there may be viable causes of action against various security companies and also against airlines who were not even directly involved because all the airlines were responsible for the security in the airports.

The suit charges the Port Authority with negligence and statutory violations in connection with the September 11 attacks, citing “inadequate and reckless security procedures in the WTC buildings, failure to provide a safe working environment for those individuals participating in the rescue and recovery effort, and the hijacking of United Airlines Flight 93.” [The Port Authority owns Newark International Airport, Flight 93’s point of origin]. Can you give some examples?

At this point, I think it is not timely for us to start to detail these allegations. This [filing] is a pro forma event, but we are not sure at this time if in fact the Port Authority is a viable defendant in this case, and that is why we wanted the time to wait for government reports. We’d also like to complete our investigations.

NEWSWEEK: Why file a lawsuit if you’re not sure the Port Authority is liable?

Sanford Rubenstein: They very well may be liable, but the purpose in the filing of the lawsuit was to protect the rights of those who may want to file a lawsuit. It was filed to protect the rights of the victims, and we will continue our investigation to determine if there is liability with regard to the attacks.

NEWSWEEK: Questions have been raised about the thickness of the fire retardant on the steel, about engineering problems in the floor trusses and about why the interior structure did not provide adequate support in the disaster. Are there other particular problems that you cite in the lawsuit?

Sanford Rubenstein: These are all issues that we are looking at, but we filed the complaint to cover what we had to cover technically so the victims, if they choose, could proceed with the lawsuit. In terms of specific allegations, we’ll wait until our investigation is complete and until we decide, or the victims decide, whether they want to move forward.

NEWSWEEK: When do you think your investigation will be completed?

Sanford Rubenstein: I think six months is a fair estimate.

NEWSWEEK: Should the families decide to proceed, how much money could they expect to collect?

Sanford Rubenstein: Each case will be evaluated on its own merits in terms of damages, but some might be worth tens of millions of dollars because of the economic loss. The statute in New York only enables one to receive losses for economic loss and pain and suffering. It depends on how much they were making a year, what their future losses would be. We should be able to get compensation for grief and sorrow. In New York, it is only economic loss and pain and suffering. It also does not cover brothers and sisters suing individually on their own behalf, which the case against the Saudis does.

NEWSWEEK: So how many people are eligible to participate in that lawsuit filed in mid-August against the Sudanese government, the Saudis and the Saudi banks and charities?

Sanford Rubenstein: I’d say at least 10,000 or so are eligible. This is one of the broadest measures of damages for victims. You can collect for economic loss, pain and suffering and grief and sorrow. And brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers—they can each bring suits on their own behalf.

NEWSWEEK: How many people have joined the suit now?

Sanford Rubenstein: Initially it was about 900. Then we amended it to 1,530. Now it is about 2,500. One of the problems is that many Americans are not aware of their rights to sue and collect damages.

NEWSWEEK: How long do other victims and families have to decide whether to join or file a similar lawsuit?

Sanford Rubenstein: We believe there is a statute of four years.

NEWSWEEK: Will those that participate in the Saudi suit also be able to collect from the Victim Compensation Fund?

Sanford Rubenstein: Yes, that is another important part. The judge who ruled on the suits against the Port Authority also said in his order and made it clear—and the representative from the Victim Compensation Fund agreed to this—is that plaintiffs who participate in the Saudi lawsuit can also collect from the Victim Compensation Fund. So, for example, you can take one from column A—the Victim Compensation Fund or the lawsuit against the airlines or the Port Authority—and then from column B: you can also participate in the Saudi suit.

NEWSWEEK: Do you really expect to collect more than $1 trillion—or any money at all—from Saudi princes and the Sudanese government? Or were the victims’ families simply trying to send a message?

Sanford Rubenstein: Our lead counsel, Ron Motley, was very successful in the litigation against the tobacco companies. [The South Carolina attorney helped states recover billions in the tobacco settlements.] He has also collected millions of dollars for asbestos victims. Is this serious litigation? Is this real litigation? Yes, the goal is to collect for the families.

NEWSWEEK: Do you think the defendants will take this seriously?

Sanford Rubenstein: The message has been sent loud and clear, and it has been heard around the world. We are also working with the victims to allow them to have access to the assets [belonging to groups identified by federal authorities as funding terrorism] that have already been frozen by the U.S. government. In addition, we’re looking to Congress to enact new statutes with proper safeguards to freeze the assets of those who have been sued here, pending the results of the litigation—meaning, if the court determines that there was an appropriate matter of cause to freeze the assets.

NEWSWEEK: Why did you participate in this lawsuit?

Sanford Rubenstein: We wanted to pursue this and collect for those who were wronged so that what happened on 9-11 won’t happen again. We are lawyers. We are playing our part, using the system of justice to stop terrorism.

I recently represented Abner Louima [the Haitian immigrant who won an $8.75 million settlement after being tortured by a New York City police officer], and that case had as one of its goals compensation for Abner but also sending a strong message out to prevent what happened to him from happening to anyone else. This is a case in now, in which the goal for thousands of people is the same goal—to do whatever we can so that whatever happened on 9-11 won’t happen again and Americans are not victimized again in the same fashion. I don’t see the litigation just from the viewpoint of getting damages for the victims, but also as an attempt to change society for the better. We want to bankrupt terrorism.

NEWSWEEK: Those are some pretty ambitious goals.

Sanford Rubenstein: I really think this may be looked upon as one of the most important civil cases of the century.

© 2002 Newsweek, Inc.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.