Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:06:45.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Central de Reserva del Peru v. The Riggs National Bank of Washington, D.C. (Setoffs of Foreign Central Bank Deposits in the United States Against Indebtedness; U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2017

Georges R. Delaume
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial and Similar Proceedings
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , September 1996 , pp. 1159 - 1164
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

[Reproduced from 919 F.Supp. 13 (D.D.C. 1994). The Introductory Note was prepared for International Legal Materials by Georges R. Delaume, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, and I.L.M. Corresponding Editor for International Arbitration.

[U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, P.L. 94-583, October 21, 1976, appears at 15 I.L.M. 1388 (1976); First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior De Cuba, U.S. Supreme Court, June 17, 1983, discussing the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, appears at 22 I.L.M. 840 (1983); and Allied Bank v. Banco Credito Agricola de Cartago, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, March 18, 1985, discussing the act of state doctrine and external debt renegotiation, appears at 24 I.L.M. 762 (1985).]

References

1 The only immunity BCR could claim, then, is under § 1609, which provides a general immunity from attachment, arrest, and execution for property of a foreign state. Even if this immunity were to extend to setoffs, it would not apply to BCR's deposit. Under § 1610(d)(2), the property of a foreign state is not immune from attachment designed to secure satisfaction of a judgment that may ultimately be entered against the foreign state, such as die judgment Riggs seeks here

2 The Court also finds no merit in BCR's claim that, even under United States law, Riggs was not entitled to rely on Mr. Blacker-Miller's agreement because Mr. Blacker-Miller had no authority to bind BCR. Mr. Blacker-Miller did not bind BCR; Mr. Neyra, Manager and Director of International Relations did in his telex accompanying the second $ 1 million deposit.

3 Because the Court is granting summary judgment in favor of Riggs, it will not consider the merits of Riggs’motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution.