Is MTN being sued? Yes: the South African telecoms group is a defendant in several lawsuits in the United States brought by American service members, civilians and their families under the Anti-Terrorism Act, and on 25 September 2026 a federal judge in New York refused MTN's request to reconsider her earlier rulings and declined to pause the case for an early appeal, sending the lead case, Zobay v MTN Group, into discovery. The plaintiffs allege that MTN's business in Iran and Afghanistan helped terrorist groups responsible for attacks that killed and injured Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan; MTN denies wrongdoing and says the rulings are procedural. The decision landed in the same week that Global Investigations Review reported a surge of aiding-and-abetting terrorism lawsuits against companies ahead of a 28 September claims deadline. This analysis explains what the court decided, how corporate liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act works after the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Twitter v Taamneh, why foreign companies end up in US courts, and what compliance and sanctions teams at multinationals operating in conflict-affected markets should take from it.
Is MTN being sued? What the court decided on 25 September 2026
The short answer is that MTN is being sued in four Anti-Terrorism Act cases, and the most advanced of them has now cleared its last pre-trial hurdle short of evidence. On 25 September 2026, US District Judge Carol Bagley Amon of the Eastern District of New York filed two memoranda and orders in Zobay v MTN Group Limited (No. 21-cv-3503). The first denied MTN's motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) to reconsider her partial denials of its motions to dismiss, issued in September 2023 (reported as Zobay I) and September 2024 (Zobay II). The second denied MTN's request to stay the proceedings and certify an interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b).
MTN had argued that the Second Circuit's July 2025 decision in Ashley v Deutsche Bank changed the law on what counts as "knowing and substantial assistance". The judge disagreed. Ashley, she wrote, may have clarified how the Second Circuit applies the Supreme Court's test, but "it did not change the law". She also noted that MTN's motion, filed on 1 December 2025, came more than a year after both rulings it challenged, well outside the 14-day local rule, though she decided it on the merits anyway. On the appeal request, she said the questions MTN raised were the natural product of evolving case law, not the exceptional circumstances that justify interrupting a case midstream, a point MLex reported on the day of the ruling.
According to MTN's own update, reported by TechCentral on 29 September, both Zobay and the related Long v MTN Group case now proceed to discovery, while two other cases, Cabrera and Chand and Davis, had no material developments. MTN stated that the rulings "do not constitute a finding of wrongdoing or liability" and that it will defend the proceedings vigorously. No court has found MTN liable, and every factual claim described below is an allegation that the plaintiffs will have to prove. For readers following the case from Johannesburg or New York, specialist counsel are listed in our directory for South Africa.
What the plaintiffs allege against MTN
The plaintiffs' case is that MTN's commercial choices in two high-risk markets gave material help to designated terrorist organisations. In Zobay, US citizens and the families of those killed or injured allege, in a first amended complaint filed in February 2022, that MTN aided and abetted terrorist groups in attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2011 and 2019. The court's orders summarise the allegations as follows, and they remain unproven.
- The Irancell joint venture. MTN holds 49% of Irancell, an Iranian mobile operator, with the Iran Electronic Development Company holding 51%. The plaintiffs allege that the two shareholders of that company, the Bonyad Mostazafan and Iran Electronics Industries, were known fronts for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and that the joint venture agreement referred to "defensive, security, and political cooperation".
- US technology and sanctions. The plaintiffs allege that MTN helped source embargoed American technology for Irancell and that leaked whistleblower documents show it discussed circumventing US sanctions to do so. They also allege a bribe paid through the US financial system in connection with the Irancell licence.
- Afghanistan. The plaintiffs allege that MTN made protection payments to the Taliban and switched off its mobile towers at the Taliban's request, hampering coalition forces.
MTN has consistently rejected these claims. In an April 2025 statement it said the plaintiffs had "sued the wrong defendants in the wrong court, based on insufficient allegations", while expressing sympathy for those who were injured or lost family members. MTN exited Afghanistan in 2024, according to ITWeb. The Iran dimension sits alongside the wider US sanctions regime we examined in our explainer on secondary sanctions on Iran.
What the Anti-Terrorism Act and JASTA allow victims to do
The Anti-Terrorism Act gives US nationals a civil claim for injuries caused by international terrorism, and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) extended that claim to anyone who aids and abets or conspires with the attacker. Under 18 U.S.C. section 2333(a), any national of the United States injured in person, property or business by reason of an act of international terrorism, or their estate, survivors or heirs, may sue in a US district court and "shall recover threefold the damages" plus costs and attorney's fees. Treble damages make these claims unusually expensive to lose.
For most of its history the Act was used against terrorists and their direct supporters. JASTA, enacted on 28 September 2016 when Congress overrode the President's veto with two-thirds majorities, added section 2333(d)(2). It allows liability to be asserted against "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". Two limits matter for companies. The attack must have been committed, planned or authorised by an organisation designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization at the time. And the claim belongs only to US nationals, which is why foreign victims have pursued companies through other routes.
Congress also told courts how to read the new liability. JASTA's findings state that Halberstam v Welch, a 1983 decision of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, "provides the proper legal framework" for civil aiding-and-abetting and conspiracy liability. That choice, and the Supreme Court's later gloss on it, is the battleground in every corporate case.
The legal test: Halberstam and Twitter v Taamneh
A company is liable as an aider and abettor under JASTA only if it consciously and culpably participated in the terrorist act that injured the plaintiff, not merely because its products or services reached a terrorist group. Courts break the claim into three elements, which Judge Amon restated in Zobay: an injury from an act of international terrorism; an act committed, planned or authorised by a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization; and aid to that act given by knowingly providing substantial assistance.
The third element carries the Halberstam requirements that the defendant was "generally aware" of its role in an overall illegal activity and that its assistance was both knowing and substantial, judged by six factors including the nature of the act, the amount and duration of the assistance and the defendant's state of mind.
In Twitter v Taamneh, decided unanimously on 18 May 2023, the Supreme Court held that the phrase "aids and abets" in section 2333(d)(2) refers to "a conscious, voluntary, and culpable participation in another's wrongdoing". The family of a victim of the 2017 Reina nightclub attack in Istanbul had sued Twitter, Google and Facebook for allowing ISIS to use their platforms. The Court dismissed the claims: the platforms had an arm's-length, passive relationship with ISIS and offered the same services to everyone.
Two parts of the reasoning now drive corporate cases. First, the focus must remain on assistance to the tort at issue: "the more attenuated the nexus, the more courts should demand that plaintiffs show culpable participation through intentional aid". Second, the Court left open liability for all of a group's attacks where a defendant gives "pervasive, systemic, and culpable assistance", and it acknowledged that a provider of routine services can cross the line by providing them in an unusual way. Those two openings are exactly where the MTN plaintiffs have pitched their case.
How courts are applying Taamneh to companies
Since 2023 the lower courts have drawn the line between ordinary commerce and culpable participation case by case, and the results turn on how "unusual" the defendant's conduct is alleged to be. The District of Columbia Circuit took a plaintiff-friendly view in Atchley v AstraZeneca UK Ltd, decided on 23 January 2026 after the Supreme Court sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Taamneh. The plaintiffs allege that pharmaceutical and medical-equipment companies paid cash bribes and supplied off-the-books goods to Iraq's Ministry of Health while it was controlled by the militia Jaysh al-Mahdi. The court reinstated the aiding-and-abetting claims, holding that the alleged conduct was "far from 'business as usual'", and noted that a weak connection between assistance and attack demands stronger indicia of culpability.
The Second Circuit went the other way on different facts in Ashley v Deutsche Bank on 21 July 2025, affirming dismissal of claims that banks aided attacks in Afghanistan by serving fertiliser companies whose product was used in bombs. As Judge Amon summarised it, the court rejected a "money fungibility" theory, held that a campaign of terror is not an "act", and found the banks had treated the suppliers like ordinary customers.
| Case | Court and date | Alleged conduct | Outcome so far |
|---|---|---|---|
| Twitter v Taamneh | US Supreme Court, 18 May 2023 | Social media platforms used by ISIS | Claims dismissed: arm's-length, routine services |
| Ashley v Deutsche Bank | Second Circuit, 21 July 2025 | Banking for fertiliser suppliers and money-laundering fronts | Dismissal affirmed: no knowing and substantial assistance |
| Moses v BNP Paribas | S.D.N.Y., 2025 | Alleged sanctions evasion for Iranian entities | Claim "narrowly, but plausibly" stated |
| Atchley v AstraZeneca | D.C. Circuit, 23 January 2026 | Alleged bribes and free goods to a militia-controlled ministry | Aiding-and-abetting claims reinstated |
| Zobay v MTN Group | E.D.N.Y., 25 September 2026 | Alleged IRGC-front joint venture and tower shutdowns for the Taliban | Reconsideration and early appeal refused; discovery |
Judge Amon placed MTN on the Atchley side of that line. She held that MTN is alleged to have "literally entered into a joint venture" with IRGC fronts and to have procured embargoed technology for them, which is not treating a customer like any other. She found the Iraq allegations met both a concrete-nexus theory and the alternative "pervasive and systemic" theory left open by Taamneh. For Afghanistan, she held that the protection payments were not linked to any specific attack, but that switching off towers at a terrorist group's request "can hardly be seen as business as usual" and was enough at the pleading stage.
Personal jurisdiction: why foreign companies end up in US courts
A foreign company can be sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act in the United States when its alleged conduct is tied to the country as a whole, and the Supreme Court has recently signalled that the constitutional limits on federal courts are looser than those on state courts. The Act provides for nationwide service of process: under 18 U.S.C. section 2334(a), process may be served in any district where the defendant resides, is found or has an agent. For a foreign defendant the question then becomes whether its contacts with the United States are enough under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
In Zobay, the judge found two jurisdictional hooks, both based on the plaintiffs' allegations. MTN's agents allegedly sourced embargoed technology from the United States for Irancell, and MTN allegedly used the US financial system for a bribe connected with the Irancell contract. Separately, she held that MTN's alleged tower shutdowns for the Taliban were conduct "expressly aimed" at the United States because they facilitated attacks on American-led forces. She refused to certify these points for appeal even though a judge in the District of Columbia had reached a less favourable view for plaintiffs in a related case, noting that disagreement among courts outside the Second Circuit is not enough.
The broader backdrop is Fuld v Palestine Liberation Organization, decided on 20 June 2025. The Court upheld a 2019 statute deeming the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority to have consented to jurisdiction in Anti-Terrorism Act cases. It declined to import the Fourteenth Amendment "minimum contacts" standard into the Fifth Amendment, holding that federal courts permit "a more flexible jurisdictional inquiry", while expressly declining to delineate the outer bounds of that power. According to Skadden's 2025 review of Anti-Terrorism Act litigation, plaintiffs argue Fuld supports jurisdiction across these cases while defendants say it was narrow, and in Finan v Lafarge, on 29 August 2025, a Brooklyn court adopted an expansive reading to find jurisdiction over the French company. Businesses with exposure to US litigation should assume that the use of dollar clearing, US-origin goods or US suppliers can be pleaded as a jurisdictional link.
Why 28 September 2026 mattered
The deadline that drove the recent filing surge comes from the interaction of JASTA's retroactivity clause with the Anti-Terrorism Act's ten-year limitation period. Section 2335 requires a suit to be commenced within 10 years after the cause of action accrued. JASTA's section 7 applied its new secondary liability to any action arising from an injury on or after 11 September 2001. In Moses v BNP Paribas in September 2025, as Skadden reported, a New York court held that for secondary-liability claims the clock started when JASTA was enacted, so claims arising from injuries since 11 September 2001 were timely until 28 September 2026.
Plaintiffs' firms acted accordingly. Global Investigations Review reported on 28 September that at least six lawsuits had been filed against 11 companies in the three preceding days. Most targeted companies already facing similar claims: BNP Paribas, Ericsson, Lafarge, and five pharmaceutical and medical companies, AstraZeneca, GE Healthcare, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer and Roche. GIR reported that Lafarge now faces ten Anti-Terrorism Act claims. Two new cases broke fresh ground: one against the Austrian gunmaker Steyr Arms in Chicago over sniper rifles allegedly sold to Iran, and one in Manhattan against Agrium Asia Pacific over its predecessor's role in the Iraq oil-for-food bribery scandal.
Ericsson told GIR it will vigorously defend; the pharmaceutical companies said they extend sympathy but are not responsible for the attacks.
The deadline does not close the door. It applies to claims resting on JASTA's retroactive reach for older injuries; claims about later attacks run on their own ten-year clocks, and Skadden counted around 30 new Anti-Terrorism Act suits in 2025, about a dozen against corporate defendants. The economics of these large, document-heavy cases are shaped by the same forces we described in our analysis of litigation funding.
Other corporate Anti-Terrorism Act cases multinationals should know
The MTN litigation is one of a growing set of claims against companies in banking, construction materials, healthcare, telecoms, tobacco and crypto, and the outcomes so far are mixed. The table below lists cases that are reliably reported, with their status as of 2 October 2026.
| Company | Allegation or conduct | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Lafarge (France) | Payments to ISIS and al-Nusrah Front to keep a Syrian cement plant running in 2013 to 2014 | US guilty plea, $777.78m in penalties; Paris conviction April 2026; multiple US civil claims |
| AstraZeneca, GE Healthcare, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Roche | Alleged bribes and free goods to Iraq's Ministry of Health (the Atchley litigation) | Claims reinstated January 2026; further suits filed September 2026; companies say they are not responsible |
| Ericsson | Alleged protection payments to groups in Iraq and elsewhere | Pending in the District of Columbia; new suit September 2026; denies liability |
| BNP Paribas | Alleged sanctions evasion for Iranian entities | Moses claim survived dismissal in 2025; further suit September 2026 |
| British American Tobacco | Alleged illicit cigarette manufacturing with North Korean entities | Filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, January 2026 |
| Binance | Alleged facilitation of transactions for terrorist groups | Several dismissals, including Troell (S.D.N.Y., March 2026) |
Lafarge is the clearest example of how criminal and civil exposure compound. In October 2022 Lafarge S.A. and its Syrian subsidiary pleaded guilty in Brooklyn to conspiring to provide material support to ISIS and al-Nusrah Front, the first company to do so, and were sentenced to probation and fines and forfeiture totalling $777.78m. On 13 April 2026 the Paris Criminal Court convicted Lafarge and eight individuals of financing terrorism, fining the company €1.12m, ordering €30m of assets confiscated and sentencing its former chief executive to six years. Chiquita offers a cautionary parallel outside the Anti-Terrorism Act: in June 2024 a Florida federal jury ordered it to pay $38.3m to Colombian families over payments to a paramilitary group, years after its 2007 guilty plea. Because those families are not US nationals, the claim did not run under section 2333. How such verdicts fare after trial is a question we explored in our analysis of whether a jury verdict can be reversed, and the willingness of claimants to test new liability theories against large companies is visible well beyond terrorism law, as British Columbia's lawsuit against OpenAI shows.
Where criminal and civil exposure meet
Civil Anti-Terrorism Act claims rarely travel alone: they tend to follow, or prompt, criminal and regulatory investigations. MTN disclosed in August 2025 that it had been informed through its US counsel of a US Department of Justice grand jury investigation relating to the group, its former Afghan subsidiary and Iran, and said it was cooperating and responding voluntarily to requests for information. A grand jury investigation is not a charge, and MTN's disclosure did not describe any finding.
The statute links the two tracks. Section 2333(c) provides that a final foreign criminal judgment can, to the extent US law gives it full faith and credit, stop a defendant denying the essential allegations of the offence in a later civil case under the Act; section 2333(b) does the same for certain US convictions. Prosecutors are watching the space too. On 1 October 2026 GIR reported that an assistant US attorney in the Brooklyn office, David Pitluck, told a GIR conference in Madrid he was "shocked" by the number of Lafarge-style cases and investigations. The same enforcement environment produced the prison sentence we covered in the Nodus Bank sanctions case.
What happens next in the MTN litigation
Discovery comes next, and it is where the MTN case will be won or lost on facts rather than pleadings. During discovery the parties exchange documents and take evidence; afterwards, either side can seek summary judgment, as Connecting Africa reported from MTN's update. MTN says it continues to believe the evidence will show it was not a culpable participant in the attacks. Judge Amon herself noted that the allegation that tower shutdowns "substantially contributed" to the Afghanistan attacks "will eventually need to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence at trial".
The refusal to certify an appeal does not end MTN's appellate options; it means any appeal on these points would normally wait for a final judgment. Discovery in a case spanning Iranian corporate structures, US export controls and Afghan operations is likely to be long and contested, and the related cases in the District of Columbia remain to be resolved. Parties weighing those steps generally rely on specialist dispute resolution and litigation counsel.
What compliance and sanctions teams should do now
The practical lesson from the MTN ruling and the Taamneh case law is that liability risk rises when a company departs from ordinary, arm's-length business in a high-risk market, so compliance programmes should be built to detect and document exactly those departures. Courts have distinguished routine services offered to all comers from deals structured unusually: joint ventures with entities linked to designated groups, payments for "security", operational concessions to armed groups, and workarounds of sanctions or export controls. Those are the facts plaintiffs plead and the facts discovery will test.
The US Treasury's Framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments says a risk-based sanctions programme should rest on at least five essential components: management commitment, risk assessment, internal controls, testing and auditing, and training. It addresses foreign companies that do business with US persons or use US-origin goods or services, the same contacts that can found jurisdiction in an Anti-Terrorism Act case. The table below maps those components to conflict-market risks raised by the cases discussed above.
| Area | What to check | Why it matters in ATA cases |
|---|---|---|
| Partner and shareholder due diligence | Beneficial owners of joint-venture partners, and links to designated groups or state entities | Zobay turns on alleged fronts for the IRGC |
| Security and protection arrangements | Every payment to security providers, local intermediaries or armed groups, with approvals recorded | Protection payments feature in MTN, Ericsson, Lafarge and Chiquita |
| Operational requests from armed actors | Escalation rules for any request to shut down, reroute or alter service | Tower shutdowns sustained the Afghanistan claim |
| Sanctions and export controls | Sourcing of US-origin goods, transshipment and end use | Embargo evasion is treated as unusual, culpable conduct and a jurisdictional link |
| Public-source awareness | Monitoring of reports linking counterparties to terrorist groups | Courts infer "general awareness" from public reporting |
| Records and holds | Retention policies and litigation holds for high-risk markets | Discovery reaches internal emails and board papers |
Three further steps follow. Treat a market exit as a legal event, preserving records rather than discarding them. Reassess insurance for political violence and conflict exposure, an area we covered in our guide to war risk insurance. And align anti-bribery controls with counter-terrorism controls, since the alleged conduct in these cases often began as a corruption risk, a theme in our review of China's anti-corruption laws. Specialist help is available from OFAC sanctions advisers and export control specialists.
When to bring in specialist advisers
Companies should take specialist advice as soon as they receive an Anti-Terrorism Act complaint, a grand jury subpoena or credible information that a counterparty in a conflict market may be linked to a designated group. The issues cut across several disciplines: US civil litigation and jurisdiction, criminal exposure in more than one country, sanctions and export controls, and internal investigations whose findings may later be disclosed. Early decisions about privilege, document preservation and voluntary disclosure are hard to reverse.
Boards should also be clear about the limits of what the MTN ruling decides. It is a pleading-stage judgment that the plaintiffs' allegations, if true, state a claim; it says nothing about whether they are true. For companies with operations in Iraq, Afghanistan or similar markets, the Corporate INTL directory lists criminal and white-collar defence lawyers, internal and government investigations specialists and technology, media and telecoms advisers.
Frequently asked questions
Is MTN being sued?
Yes. MTN is a defendant in four US Anti-Terrorism Act cases brought by American service members, civilians and families. On 25 September 2026 a federal judge in Brooklyn refused to reconsider earlier rulings or allow an early appeal in Zobay v MTN Group, so that case and the related Long case move to discovery. MTN denies wrongdoing and no court has found it liable.
What is MTN accused of?
The plaintiffs allege that MTN's 49% stake in Iranian operator Irancell, a joint venture with entities they say were fronts for Iran's Revolutionary Guard, helped fund and equip groups behind attacks in Iraq, and that MTN paid the Taliban and switched off towers at its request in Afghanistan. These are allegations, which MTN disputes.
What did JASTA do?
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, enacted on 28 September 2016 over a presidential veto, amended the Anti-Terrorism Act to let US victims sue anyone who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or conspires with the person who committed an act of international terrorism by a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Can a company be sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act?
Yes. Since JASTA, companies can face secondary liability if they knowingly and substantially assisted a designated group's attack. After Twitter v Taamneh, plaintiffs must show conscious, voluntary and culpable participation, not just that ordinary services reached terrorists. Successful claimants recover three times their damages plus costs and attorney's fees.
What is the Twitter v Taamneh aiding and abetting standard?
In May 2023 the Supreme Court unanimously held that aiding and abetting under section 2333(d)(2) means conscious, voluntary and culpable participation in another's wrongdoing. The more remote the link between a defendant's help and the attack, the more plaintiffs must show intentional aid; liability for all of a group's attacks needs pervasive, systemic and culpable assistance.
Why did the court refuse MTN an immediate appeal?
Judge Carol Bagley Amon held that MTN's questions about jurisdiction and the Taamneh test were the ordinary result of developing case law, not the exceptional circumstances needed to certify an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b). She also held that the Second Circuit's Ashley decision clarified but did not change the law.
Why was 28 September 2026 a deadline for terrorism lawsuits?
The Anti-Terrorism Act has a ten-year limitation period. A New York court held in Moses v BNP Paribas that, for JASTA claims based on injuries since 11 September 2001, the period ran from JASTA's enactment on 28 September 2016. Plaintiffs therefore filed a wave of suits against companies in the final days before it expired.
Can US courts hear claims against foreign companies like MTN?
They can if the company's conduct is sufficiently connected to the United States. In Zobay the judge relied on alleged US technology sourcing and US-dollar payments, and on tower shutdowns aimed at US-led forces. In Fuld v PLO the Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment allows a more flexible test than state-court minimum contacts.
What should multinationals in conflict-affected markets do?
Build sanctions and counter-terrorism controls around the conduct courts treat as unusual: partner ownership checks, documented approval of any security or protection payment, escalation of requests from armed actors, export-control checks on US-origin goods, and record preservation. The OFAC framework's five components are a sensible baseline for that programme.
Sources
- US District Court, E.D.N.Y.: Zobay v MTN Group Ltd, Memorandum and Order denying reconsideration (25 September 2026)
- US District Court, E.D.N.Y.: Zobay v MTN Group Ltd, Memorandum and Order denying stay and interlocutory appeal (25 September 2026)
- MLex: MTN loses effort to stay US lawsuit over alleged Iraq IRGC-linked business (25 September 2026)
- TechCentral: MTN loses bid to halt US Anti-Terrorism Act claims (29 September 2026)
- ITWeb: MTN loses bid to halt US anti-terrorism lawsuits (30 September 2026)
- Connecting Africa: MTN's US anti-terrorism cases move to discovery phase (30 September 2026)
- MTN Group: MTN Group notes incorrect media article relating to US legal issue (17 April 2025)
- Bizcommunity: MTN faces new US investigation into Afghanistan conduct (19 August 2025)
- Global Investigations Review: Aiding and abetting terrorism lawsuits surge ahead of claims deadline (28 September 2026)
- Global Investigations Review: Brooklyn federal prosecutor "shocked" by number of Lafarge-style cases, investigations (1 October 2026)
- 18 U.S.C. section 2333: Civil remedies (Legal Information Institute)
- 18 U.S.C. section 2334: Jurisdiction and venue (Legal Information Institute)
- 18 U.S.C. section 2335: Limitation of actions (Legal Information Institute)
- Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, Public Law 114-222 (28 September 2016)
- US Supreme Court: Twitter, Inc. v Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (18 May 2023)
- US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: Atchley v AstraZeneca UK Ltd, on remand (23 January 2026)
- US Supreme Court: Fuld v Palestine Liberation Organization (20 June 2025)
- Skadden: Litigation Under the Antiterrorism Act: 2025 Year in Review (January 2026)
- Skadden: Litigation Under the Antiterrorism Act: Updates From Early 2026 (May 2026)
- US Department of Justice: Lafarge pleads guilty to conspiring to provide material support to foreign terrorist organizations
- Al Jazeera: French court rules cement giant Lafarge guilty of funding Syria "terrorism" (13 April 2026)
- OPB: A jury says Chiquita should pay millions over paramilitary killings in Colombia (June 2024)
- US Treasury, OFAC: A Framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments
About this article
This analysis was researched and written by The Corporate INTL Newsroom, which covers cross-border legal, regulatory and business developments for lawyers, professional advisers and financiers in over 150 jurisdictions. It has been checked against the two orders filed in Zobay v MTN Group on 25 September 2026, the text of the Anti-Terrorism Act and JASTA, the Supreme Court's decisions in Twitter v Taamneh and Fuld v PLO, the D.C. Circuit's decision in Atchley, and primary reporting. The factual claims made in the civil cases described are allegations that have not been proven at trial, and MTN denies liability. This article is general information, not legal advice; for advice on a specific matter, consult a qualified adviser. Last reviewed 2 October 2026. For more analysis like this, visit the Corporate INTL newsroom or subscribe to Corporate INTL.
