1 The other action in this case was brought by ESESCO, which sought to recover the purchase price of an order of oleoresin received by Kal-Spice prior to the expropriation. ESESCO moved for summary judgment on its claim. However, the court held that there remained unresolved issues of material fact. As of the date of this writing, ESESCO’s claim is still being litigated.

2 PMGSE also moved to dismiss Kal-Spice’s claim on the grounds that it was immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, that there were no contacts with the state of Michigan sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, and that venue would be proper only in the District of Columbia. The court, however, did not address these sovereign immunity issues in view of its disposition of the action on act of state grounds.

3 Signed Sept. 7, 1951, 4 UST 2134, TIAS No. 2864 (emphasis added).

4 376 U.S. 398, 428 (1964) (emphasis added).

5 543 F. Supp. 1224, 1230.

6 Ibid.

7 22 U.S.C. §2370(e)(2).

8 431 F.2d 394 (2d Cir. 1970), rev’d on other grounds, 406 U.S. 759 (1972).

9 See, e.g., United Bank Ltd. v. Cosmic Int’l, Inc., 542 F.2d 868 (2d Cir. 1976).

10 See, e.g., Jellenik v. Huron Copper Mining Co., 177 U.S. 1, 13 (1900) (property represented by certificates of stock may be deemed to be held by the company within the state that created it).

11 Kalamazoo Spice Extraction Co. v. The Provisional Military Gov’t of Socialist Ethiopia, No. 82–1521 (6th Cir. filed Nov. 19, 1982). For the views of the Department of State on the issues raised in the case, see supra pp. 141–43.