The Lawsuit

We have filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles against Crowell & Moring (C&M).  We have alleged and believe they engaged in conduct solely for their own benefit at the expense of those U.S. nationals’ who joined in the Joint Prosecution Agreement (JPA) sent to all of us by the Liaison Group (LG) and C&M.  We have alleged and believe that they are now unlawfully demanding us to forfeit the vast majority of the settlement funds awarded to us by the United States government as a result of U.S. diplomatic negotiations with Libya. 

We have spent a substantial amount of time researching and assessing this case and speaking with numerous top-notch attorneys, almost all of whom agree that C&M’s actions were wrongful on many levels.  After speaking with a number of attorneys interested in representing us, we have chosen a Harvard Law School trained attorney with extensive law firm experience in high-stakes foreign affairs litigation, who has represented Holocaust victims, and who is a former professor at Pepperdine Law School.  Enclosed is a copy of the complaint that we have filed along with articles it has generated; the complaint’s introduction specifies the wrongs we allege that C&M committed and is continuing to commit. 

Please note the following allegations:


Joint Prosecution Agreement Does Not Cover Awards from the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

• Our awards result from the U.S.-Libya treaty, the Claims Settlement Agreement between the U.S. and Libya, not from the lawsuit C&M filed on our behalf against Libya.

• Under the terms of the agreements we signed with C&M – the JPA, the Joinder, and the Retainer Agreement - C&M was to represent us in a civil suit against Libya.  None of these documents state that C&M’s work on our behalf would include state-to-state diplomacy, treaty, or executive agreement.  This silence is dispositive of whether the awards from the FCSC are governed by the JPA: the JPA simply does not cover the awards resulting from a treaty. 

• C&M did not participate in any significant manner to realize the U.S.-Libya treaty; this was undertaken by the U.S. Government on our behalf.  The U.S.-Libya treaty, for which C&M now demands credit, does not mention the lawsuit or judicial claims brought by C&M.  Further, under international law, the U.S. can only espouse the claims of its own nationals. Therefore, sharing our award with non-nationals violates the treaty and the foreign policy interests of the U.S. in only compensating its own citizens for Libya’s acts of terrorism.

• One of the top American experts on foreign claims resolution believes that C&M “will be hard pressed to argue that proceeds under the bilateral treaty intended for American nationals should be shared with non-Americans pursuant to an agreement which did not by its terms cover diplomatically-espoused claims resolved by treaty and distributed under the FCSC.” www.opiniojuris.org

• The lawsuit filed on our behalf did not result in any court-ordered settlement or recovery of any kind and the lawsuit was dismissed.  After the dismissal, C&M’s representation of us ended.  Under the terms of the JPA, neither C&M nor the non-national plaintiffs are entitled to any of our recovery resulting from the U.S.-Libya treaty. 

C&M Breached Their Fiduciary Duties by Not Disclosing the Inherent Conflicts of Interest in Representing both Nationals and Non-Nationals

• C&M did not disclose that under international law, the U.S. can only represent and espouse the claims of its own citizens even though such settlement of claims is an established, customary practice that has existed for over 200 years.  Yet, C&M acknowledges this practice in one of its publications.

• C&M did not disclose the fact that Libya was seeking to normalize its relations with the U.S., and that as a consequence, a settlement of U.S. nationals’ terrorism claims was imminent, and therefore, our interests as nationals were not aligned with non-U.S. nationals.

• C&M took the wrongful step of soliciting victims of Pan Am Flight 73 to enter into a JPA, which requires that each U.S. national member share the proceeds of any recovery awarded with the majority of non-U.S. nationals without clearly informing the U.S. nationals of the conflicts of interests inherent in joining with non-U.S. nationals, including the foreseeable conflict we now face with the non-U.S. nationals now that the U.S. has espoused the U.S. nationals’ claims in a settlement with Libya.

• C&M knew at that time of the virtual impossibility of the non-U.S. nationals ever receiving compensation for terrorism injuries and that there was a strong U.S. governmental interest in compensating U.S. victims of terrorism through political and diplomatic channels.  C&M attorneys have even written articles on specific legislation that allows only U.S. citizens to collect on judgments against foreign state sponsors of terrorism.  Yet the U.S. nationals were never informed of the possibility of a U.S. claims settlement by treaty with Libya.

• We estimate that U.S. nationals would be forced to forfeit approximately 90% of their award from the recovery by the U.S.-Libya treaty to share with non-U.S. nationals and C&M.  However, forfeiting our awards would be in direct conflict with the treaty which specifically precludes non-U.S. nationals from any compensation, as required by international and U.S. law. 

C&M’s Attorneys’ Fees are Unlawful

• C&M now demands that U.S. citizens turn over their awarded funds from a politically negotiated settlement to share with all JPA clients of C&M and for the payment of C&M’s attorneys’ fees of 25%, rather than 10% as set forth under federal law.  A federal statute governing the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission specifies that attorney’s compensation for any claim submitted to that federal agency cannot exceed 10% and declares that any agreement to the contrary shall be unlawful and void.  C&M even failed to disclose this information to its clients, again breaching its ethical obligations as our attorney.

C&M Breached the JPA

• We have alleged that C&M made fraudulent representations concerning its intent to file lawsuits in foreign countries on behalf of the non-U.S. nationals.  C&M had no intention of doing so, as evidenced by the fact that it has not taken any steps in this direction since the signing of the JPA and has even stated that it has no intention of doing so in the future.