mainly banks in Arab and Islamic coun

836 mainly banks in Arab and Islamic coun- tries. Ashton Complaint 1583; Burnett Complaint 147. It also has banks in Chi- cago, Illinois and Houston, Texas. Bur- nett Complaint 147. Al Baraka allegedly provided financial infrastructures in Sudan to Osama bin Laden through Defendant charity Al Haramain. Ashton Complaint 119 584, 585, 598; Burnett Complaint 11 48, 49, 62, Plaintiffs do not offer any factual allega- tions against Al Baraka or Mr. Kamel to withstand their motions to dismiss. The majority of the complaints’ allegations re- garding Al Baraka actually concern Dallah Albaraka. The specific allegations against Al Baraka are that through Al Haramain it provided financial infrastructures in Su- dan, it provided support to Al Haramain, and it is present in the Sudan banking business through banks it holds. The complaints do not allege that Al Baraka knew or had any reason to know that Al Haramain was supporting terrorism, nor do they allege facts from which such an inference could be drawn. The allegation that an employee of a Dallah Albaraka subsidiary financially sup- ported two of the hijackers in San Diego does not translate into an allegation that Mr. Kamel provided material support to terrorism or aided and abetted those that provided material support. An employee’s actions cannot be a basis for employer liability unless the employee was acting in furtherance of the employer’s business. Tasso, 1997 WL 16066, at *6. There is no allegation that Mr. Kamel knew Mr. al Bayoumi or directed anyone at the Della Albaraka subsidiary to support al Qaeda or the hijackers. Similarly, the allegation that Mr. Kamel was one of three founders of Al Shamal Islamic Bank in 1983, without additional allegations, does not state a claim for relief. Thus, the Ashton and 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES Burnett claims against Al Baraka and Mr. Kamel are dismissed in their entirety. 5. NCB [99] The Ashton and Burnett Plain- tiffs’ allegations against NCB are outlined in Part I.B.4. The Court finds it would be premature to analyze Plaintiffs’ largely conclusory claims against NCB under Rule 12(6)(6) at this time. NCB may be im- mune from suit and further discovery if it is found to be an instrumentality of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its actions do not fit within the FSIA’s exceptions to immunity. Additionally, the Court is not yet convinced that it would be proper to exercise personal jurisdiction over NCB. Accordingly, NCB’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied without prejudice. NCB may renew its motion upon completion of the limited jurisdiction- al discovery—tirst with respect to its in- strumentality status—outlined by the Court above. 6. Saudi Binladin Group [100] The Ashton and Burnett allega- tions against the SBG are outlined in Part II.C.8. The same allegations that warrant limited jurisdictional discovery to investi- gate whether SBG purposefully directed its activities at the United States and its contacts with the United States preclude dismissal under 12(b)(6) at this time. SBG provided construction support to Osama bin Laden. Ashton Complaint 11550, 552-53; Burnett Complaint 11319-22. A branch of SBG purportedly provided shel- ter to an al Qaeda operative. Ashton Complaint 1555; Burnett Complaint 1 324. SBG has, at some point, had a close rela- tionship with Osama bin Laden, but the complaints do not specify when or whether the relationship continues. While these allegations are certainly not sufficient to reach a jury, if Plaintiffs demonstrate that HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017901