Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 1976

Pages22-23
22 Volume 23, January–March 2017 international law update
© 2017 International Law Group, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
e subpoena at issue in this appeal was served
on BBVA in an ef‌fort to enforce Vera’s Federal
Default Judgment. e legitimacy of the subpoena
was tied to the District Court’s jurisdiction to
enter judgment against Cuba under one of the
exceptions to sovereign immunity in the FSIA. In
order to invoke the terrorism exception to sovereign
immunity of the FSIA, Vera had the burden to
establish that Cuba was designated a state sponsor
of terrorism in 1982 as a result of his father’s death.
e record suggested on the contrary that the
State Department designated Cuba a state sponsor
of terrorism generally because of its “support
for revolutionary violence and groups [that] use
terrorism as a policy instrument.”
“We reverse. e District Court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over Vera’s action against Cuba
because Cuba was not designated a state sponsor of
terrorism at the time Vera’s father was killed, and Vera
failed to establish that Cuba was later designated a
state sponsor of terrorism as a result of his father’s
death. Accordingly, the FSIAs terrorism exception
to sovereign immunity—the only potential basis for
subject matter jurisdiction in this case—does not
apply. Cuba was immune from Vera’s action, the
District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
to enter judgment against it, and the information
subpoena to enforce that judgment is void.” (Page
312-313).
Consequently, the Judgment against Cuba and
the information subpoena to enforce that Judgment
were held to be void.
citation: Vera v. Republic of Cuba, 867 F.3d 310,
320 (2d Cir. 2017).
FOREIGN SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITIES ACT, 1976
Supreme Court vacated judgment of
court of appeals and remanded case for
further proceedings consistent with its
opinion that non-frivolous argument
is not sufficient for expropriation
exception to apply, which matter must
be decided as close to outset as possible
Since the mid-1970’s a wholly owned
Venezuela-incorporated subsidiary (Subsidiary)
of an American company (Parent) supplied oil
rigs to oil development entities that were part
of the Venezuelan Government. In 2011 the
American Parent company and its Venezuelan
Subsidiary brought a lawsuit in federal court
against those foreign government entities
claiming that the Venezuelan Government had
unlawfully expropriated the Subsidiary’s oil rigs
by nationalizing them and sought compensation.
Venezuela moved to dismiss the case on the ground
that its sovereign immunity deprived the District
Court of jurisdiction.
A wholly owned Venezuelan subsidiary
(Subsidiary) of an American company (Parent) has
long supplied oil rigs to oil development entities
that were part of the Venezuelan Government. e
American Parent and its Venezuelan Subsidiary
(plaintif‌fs) f‌iled suit in federal court against those
entities, claiming that Venezuela had unlawfully
expropriated the Subsidiary’s rigs by nationalizing
them. Venezuela moved to dismiss the case on the
ground that its sovereign immunity deprived the
District Court of jurisdiction. e District Court
agreed as to the Subsidiary, dismissing its claim on
jurisdictional grounds. But it rejected the claim
that the Parent had no rights in the Subsidiary’s
property. e District of Columbia Circuit reversed
in part and af‌f‌irmed in part, f‌inding that both
claims fell within the exception. With respect to the
Subsidiary’s claim, it concluded that a sovereign’s
taking of its own nationals’ property would violate
international law if the expropriation unreasonably

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT