the Department conveyed its views concerning plaintiff's position that the court should exercise in personam jurisdiction in this case. This i letter is quoted in Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1973, at 227-230.

No. 80. Pacheo Ruiz v. Air France, Republic of France, Civil Action No. 609-72 (D.P.R.); Cruz Candelaria v. Air France, Republic of France, Civil Action No. 754-72 (D. P. R.); and related actions.

Diplomatic requests: September 8 and 11, 1972.

No Department decision. The Department declined action pending resolution by the court of a question of sufficiency of service. These actions involved claims of negligence against Air France in connection with the terrorist attack at Lod Airport in Tel Aviv in 1972.

No. 81. Vincente, et al. v. State of Trinidad and Tobago, et al., Index No. 7917/70 (Sup. Ct. N.Y., N.Y. County).

Diplomatic request (from the Ambassador of Trinidad and Tobago): October 6, 1972.

Request for immunity from suit was denied by the Department. by a note dated January 11, 1974.

The plaintiff, Vincente, suffered a fall while visiting Trinidad and Tobago, and was treated in a government hospital there. The complaint alleged that Vincente suffered injuries as a result of improper treatment in the hospital. Counsel for Trinidad and Tobago argued. inter alia, that the provision of hospital services in question was not a commercial activity, was a governmental function, and had occurred entirely outside the jurisdiction of the United States. The Department's note stated in part:

After weighing all aspects of this matter, the Department of State has concluded that under United States practice and jurisprudence the activities in question were essentially of a private nature for purposes of the Tate Letter and that the restrictive theory of immunity described in the Tate Letter must be applied in this case. While sympathetic to the position of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago in this case, the Department of State cannot, consistent with its practice in these cases, make a suggestion of immunity based on considerations in the nature of the convenience of the forum or service of process.

No. 82. Renchard v. Humphreys & Harding, et al., Civil Action No. 2128-72 (D.D.C.).

First diplomatic request from the Brazilian Embassy):

December 6, 1972.

Suit by an owner of the property adjoining the Embassy of Brazil in Washington, for property damage allegedly caused by construc

tion of the Embassy. Request for immunity from suit was denied by the Department, in a note dated January 30, 1974.

Second diplomatic request: April 4, 1975.

This second request arose under an amended complaint. By a Department note dated July 7, 1975, immunity from suit was again denied, except to the extent that punitive damages were sought.

Reported: Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1974, at 263-264; Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1975, at 342-344: 59 F.R.D. 530 (D.D.C.).

No. 84. Soobitsky v. German Federal Railroad, 1972 Civ. 213 (S.D.N.Y.).

Diplomatic request (from Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany): June 25, 1973.

The action was for injuries arising from a train derailment in Germany. The Department declined to make a decision pending resolution of a defense of insufficient service of process.

No. 85. Deep, Deep Ocean Products, Inc. v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Sovrybflot, Civil Action No. 73–3052-F (D. Mass. 1973).

Diplomatic request and protest (from the Soviet Embassy): September 7, 1973.

Immunity from attachment was recognized by the Department in a letter to the Attorney General dated September 14, 1973, on grounds that the attached vessel in question was engaged in a public function, a joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. scientific mission.

Reported: Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1973, at 224– 225; and 493 F.2d 1223 (1st Cir. 1974).

No. 86. Industria Azucarera Nacional, S.A., et al. v. Empresa Navegacion Mambisa (as owner of the M/V Imias), Civil Action No. 7902 (D.C.Z.); reported as Spacil v. Crowe.

Diplomatic request (by Embassy of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic on behalf of the Republic of Cuba): October 3, 1973.

Immunity from attachment of a Cuban vessel was recognized by the Department, in a letter to the Attorney General dated October 25. 1973.

Reported: Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1973, at 225– 227; Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1974, at 268-271; 13 Int'l Legal Materials 120 (1974); and 489 F.2d 614 (5th Cir. 1974). See Leigh, Sovereign Immunity-The Case of the "Imias," 68 Am. J. Int'l L. 280 (1974).

No. 87. Holden v. United States, Commonwealth of Australia, et al.. No. C-73 1313 ACW (N.D. Calif.).

Diplomatic request (from the Embassy of Australia): October 5,

1973.

No Department decision. The case against the Commonwealth of Australia was dismissed by the court on grounds of insufficient service. The court said that service on the Consul General for Australia was ineffective, because "a consul is not an agent . . . for the purpose of receiving service of process."

No. 88. Aerotrade Inc. v. Republic of Haiti, 73 Civ. 3587 (S.D.N.Y.). Diplomatic request (from the Embassy of the Republic of Haiti): October 29, 1973.

No Department decision. The Department was advised by counsel for defendant that his client was withdrawing its request for a Department decision.

Reported: 376 F. Supp. 1281 (S.D.N.Y. 1974); 416 F. Supp. 1114 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). See, Lowenfeld, Litigating A Sovereign Immunity Claim—The Haiti Case, 49 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 377 (1974).

No. 92. Granados, et al. v. Linea Aeropostal Venezolana, et al., Nos. 73-20665 et seq. (Cir. Ct. Dade County, Fla. 1973).

Diplomatic request (from the Embassy of Venezuela): December 27, 1973.

No Department decision. The Department declined action pending the resolution of certain outstanding jurisdictional issues by the court.

No. 93. North East Shipping Corp. v. Government of Pakistan, Civil Action No. 72-Civ-4750 CMM (S.D.N.Y. 1972).

Diplomatic request (from the Embassy of Pakistan): February 15.

1974.

Request for immunity from suit denied by the Department, in a note dated December 31, 1974, quoted in Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1974, at 266.

No. 94. Walnut Equipment Leasing Co. v. Central African Delegation, Index No. 9932–74 (Civ. Ct., City of N.Y. 1974).

Diplomatic request (from the Embassy of the Central African Republic) March 20, 1974.

Immunity from execution to satisfy a default judgment was recognized by the Department, in a letter to the Attorney General dated

April 8, 1974. The Department was subsequently advised that the case was settled.

Reported: Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1974, at 267. No. 95. Sea Transport Corp. as owner of the S/T Eagle Voyager v. The S/T Manhattan, 74 Civ. 2096 (WCC) (S.D.N.Y. 1974).

Diplomatic request (from the Embassy of the People's Republic of Bangladesh): November 8, 1974.

No Department decision. Department declined action until outstanding jurisdictional issues were resolved by the court.

Reported: Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1974, at 273; and 405 F. Supp. 1244 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).

No. 96. Semonian v. Crosbie, Government of the Province of Newfoundland, et al., Civil Action No. 74-4893-T (D. Mass. 1974).

Diplomatic request (from the Embassy of Canada): November 13,

1974.

Immunity from suit was recognized in part by the Department, in a letter to the Attorney General dated February 20, 1976.

The lawsuit involved two written agreements between the Province of Newfoundland and a Canadian corporation (“Canadian Javelin”) concerning the exploitation of timber resources on public lands of the Province. Under the first agreement (the "original agreement"), Canadian Javelin was to construct a mill, a plant and other facilities; to help obtain financing, the Province agreed to guarantee loan obligations of Canadian Javelin.

Following a change of administration in the Province of Newfoundland, a dispute arose between the newly-elected government and Canadian Javelin, involving in part Canadian Javelin's alleged insufficient performance under the original agreement and its ability to pay loans guaranteed by the Province. To resolve the dispute, the parties entered into a second agreement (a settlement agreement) under which Canadian Javelin relinquished its interests in the timber projects and the Province agreed to pay $5 million and to indemnify Canadian Javelin for certain contingent obligations.

The partial recognition of immunity in this case ( a shareholder's derivative suit) related to three counts in the complaint claiming fraud and misrepresentation against the Province of Newfoundland and its officials, in inducing Canadian Javelin to enter into the original agreement and the settlement agreement. It should be noted that section 1605 (a) (5) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-583; 28 U.S.C. 1605 (a) (5))—which was pending before the Congress when this case was before the Department-accords im

munity with respect to noncommercial torts of fraud and misrepresentation. Immunity was denied, in a Department note dated March 16. 1976, as to a claim that the Province breached the indemnification provisions of the settlement agreement.

In addition to the partial immunity of the Province of Newfoundland, a full immunity from this suit was recognized for individual officials of the Province. The Department's February 20, 1976, letter noted that there was "no allegation that the officials . . . acted other than in their official capacities and on behalf of the Province."

Reported: Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1976, at 328-329.

No. 97. Greenspan, et al. v. Crosbie, et al., No. 74 Civ. 4734 (JCM) (S.D.N.Y.).

Diplomatic request: November 20, 1974.

Immunity from suit was recognized in part by the Department, in a letter to the Attorney General dated February 20, 1976.

This case has a background similar to that of the preceding case. As part of its overall plan to develop timber and other resources on publicly owned lands, the Province of Newfoundland created a crown development corporation which it sold to a Canadian company, Canadian Javelin, in return for about 80,000 shares of Canadian Javelin stock. Following a change of administration in the Province, the newly-elected government directed the sale of this stock through a Canadian brokerage firm. The Canadian brokerage firm, in turn, sold some of the stock through its U.S. affiliate. The plaintiffs alleged that they were purchasers of Canadian Javelin stock in the United States who were injured, inter alia, by various failures by the Province and its officials to disclose material information about the stock and about the Province's plans to preclude Canadian Javelin's future participation in government projects-in alleged violation of section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.

The Department recognized a full immunity from suit of individual officials of the Province of Newfoundland, noting that "although it is alleged that the defendant officials of the Province of Newfoundland acted in excess of their authority, it is not alleged that these officials acted other than in their official capacities and on behalf of the Province." Other portions of the Department's letter to the Attorney General, recognizing a partial immunity of the Province itself, are quoted in Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1976, at 330.

In a memorandum opinion, the district court dismissed the action against both the Province and its officials, on the basis of both the