Earlier this month, more than 200 plaintiffs sued companies owned by Palestinian-American developer, Bashar Masri, in the U.S. for allegedly providing support to Hamas in connection with the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. Just a few months earlier, it was reported that a group of British-Palestinians who have allegedly been harmed or lost family members during Israeli airstrikes in Gaza threated an international energy company with a lawsuit in England for allegedly providing oil that facilitates Israel’s military operations in Gaza. These disputes highlight the risks of doing business in conflict zones, which are often located between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
One such risk is litigation under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). The ATA creates a private right of action allowing U.S. nationals injured by an act of international terrorism to sue both the principal wrongdoers and those who aid and abet or conspire with a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) to commit a terrorist act. Defendants in ATA cases face treble damages and attorneys’ fees—which can lead to tremendous exposure, since hundreds of victims often sue simultaneously. Even if ATA claims against a company are eventually dismissed, such proceedings are likely to subject a company to years of costly litigation and widespread reputational damage.
Plaintiffs have been filing ATA lawsuits for decades, but their frequency and magnitude has exploded in recent years, in part due to the increase in armed conflicts around the world.
In 2025 alone, plaintiffs have filed almost a dozen lawsuits bringing ATA claims alleging involvement with or provision of support for the October 7 attack. Until now, these cases have primarily targeted allegedly charitable groups, activist organizations, and financial institutions, so the case against Masri’s companies may signal a move to bring claims against other types of businesses operating in the region for allegedly supporting Hamas.
Shalom v. Masri
On April 7, 2025, more than 200 plaintiffs—victims of Hamas attacks on and after October 7 (including members of the Israeli military who were killed or wounded in action in the Gaza Strip) and their families and estates—filed a lawsuit against Masri and his companies in a federal court in the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs bring ATA claims alleging facts that, if true, would give rise to direct, conspiracy, and aiding-and-abetting liability.
According to the complaint, Masri and his companies developed and operated two hotels and the Gaza Industrial Estate (GIE), an industrial park near the border with Israel. Plaintiffs allege Masri conspired with Hamas to use these properties to construct and conceal an elaborate subterranean attack tunnel network Hamas used to store and launch rockets. Plaintiffs further allege that Masri used his image as a peace-building businessman to attract capital from U.S. governmental and multilateral institutions such as USAID, the UN, the European Union, and the IFC.
The Hard Place
There’s always more than one side to a conflict and (almost) always more than one jurisdiction whose law may apply. In December 2024, a group of British-Palestinians who were allegedly injured or whose family members died as a result of Israel’s bombing of Gaza threatened to file tort claims in an English court against energy companies operating in the region. Claimants allege the companies supported Israel in ongoing violations of human rights and international law by continuing to supply crude oil via a pipeline critical to Israel’s military operations while Israel is engaged in armed conflict in Gaza. Claimants have demanded the companies immediately cease supplying oil to Israel, disclose documents—including policies, contracts, and risk assessments—relating to their operations in Israel, admit liability, submit to mediation to assess damages, and issue a public apology to claimants for the harm allegedly caused.
Key Takeaways
One of the challenges of operating in a conflict zone is doing business without being seen to take a side, which can expose companies to litigation brought by parties to the conflict, civilians, or related interest groups in various jurisdictions around the world. Strong compliance and oversight protocols can help with certain claims, but, in some cases, the fact of operating in a conflict zone itself is likely to lead to litigation. The legal landscape in this area is evolving quickly, so businesses operating in or considering entering conflict zones may wish to monitor the latest developments.
