1 (a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United “States or of the States in any case—

(2) in which an action is based . . . upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States.

28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(2) (1982).

2 See H.R. Rep. NO. 1487, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 6604, 6618.

3 836 F.2d 91, 94.

4 826 F.2d 415, 417 (5th Cir. 1987).

5 647 F.2d 300, 311 (2d Cir. 1981), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 1148 (1982).

6 The Texas Trading court had noted that in cases involving personal injury abroad, it was “easy to locate the ‘effect’ outside the United States.” 647 F.2d at 312 n.35.

7 826 F. 2d at 419.

8 See Tucker v. Whitaker Travel, Ltd., 620 F.Supp. 578, 586 (E.D. Pa. 1985), aff’d, 800 F.2d 1140 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 107 S.Ct. 578 (1986) (“Whatever pain and pecuniary loss plaintiffs suffer in the United States are indirect consequences of the accident [overseas]”); and Upton v. Empire of Iran, 459 F.Supp. 264, 266 (D.D.C. 1978), affd, 607 F.2d 494 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (“The common sense interpretation of a ‘direct effect’ is one which has no intervening element, but, rather, flows in a straight line without deviation or interruption”).

9 836 F.2d at 95.

10 This point was expressly left open in Texas Trading, as was the case of failure to pay a foreign corporation in the United States. 647 F.2d at 312 & nn. 34 & 35.

11 Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 880 (2d Cir. 1980), summarized in 75 AJIL 149 (1981).

12 Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. v. Argentine Republic, 830 F.2d 421 (2d Cir. 1987), summarized in 82 AJIL 126 (1988), cert, granted, 56 U.S.L.W. 3718 (U.S. Apr. 18, 1988) (No. 87–1372).