US Government Debt Different - Finance Department - University of ...

228 United States Sovereign Debt: A Thought Experiment On Default And Restructuringthe state itself, assuming the necessary separateness of the agency orinstrumentality exists. 162While restricted immunity from execution is the clear trend, manystates continue to apply an absolute immunity from execution. 163 On162 The U.S. Supreme Court recognized this general rule by holding that “governmentinstrumentalities established as juridical entities distinct and independentfrom their sovereign should normally be treated as such.” First Nat’l City Bank v.Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611, 626-27 (1983). See alsoDe Letelier v. Republic of Chile, 748 F.2d 790, 793-94 (2d Cir. 1984) (noting thepresumption of separateness of juridical bodies from its State-parent government).But see Weinstein v. Republic of Iran, 609 F.3d 43, 51 (2d Cir. 2010) (noting thatthe Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) overrode the presumption of independentstatus). The relevant provision of TRIA applies in the case of “a judgment againsta terrorist party based on a claim based upon an act of terrorism.” Terrorism RiskInsurance Act of 2002, § 201(a), Pub. L. No. 107-297, 116 Stat. 2337 (codified at28 U.S.C. § 1610, Historical and Statutory Notes, Treatment of Terrorist Assets).British courts have also noted that “[t]he distinction between [state-controlledenterprises], and their governing state, may appear artificial: but it is an accepteddistinction in the law of English and other states.” I Congreso del Partido, [1983] 1A.C. 244, 258 (H.L). Moreover, that court also held that commercial transactionsentered into by state-owned organizations could not be attributed to the State, notingthat “[t]he status of these organizations is familiar in our courts, and it has neverbeen held that the relevant state is in law answerable for their actions.” Id. at 271.On the other hand, when a separate entity of the State is found liable, the propertyof the entity is generally not immune unless the act by the entity is in exercise ofsovereign authority. See State Immunity Act, 1978, c. 33, § 14 (U.K.) (English lawdistinguishes between the State sovereign and its organs and separate entities ofthe State; these separate entities are not immune and their property is subject toordinary measures of execution unless the separate entity is performing an act inexercise of sovereign authority); The State Immunity Ordinance, No. VI of 1981, §15(2) Pak. Code (1981) (Pak.) (“A separate entity is immune from the jurisdictionof the courts of Pakistan if, and only if: (a) the proceedings relate to anything doneby it in the exercise of sovereign authority; and (b) the circumstances are such thata State would have been so immune.”); State Immunity Act 1979, §16(2) (Cap 3131979) (Sing.) (“A separate entity is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts inSingapore if, and only if: (a) the proceedings relate to anything done by it in theexercise of sovereign authority; and (b) the circumstances are such that a State wouldhave been so immune.”); Société Sonotrach v. Migeon, 77 I.L.R. 525, 527 (Fr. Courtof Cassation, First Civil Chamber 1985) (“The assets of a foreign State are, in principle,not subject to seizure, subject to exceptions in particular where they have beenallocated for an economic or commercial activity. . . . On the other hand, the assetsof public entities, whether personalized or not, which are distinct from the foreignState, may be subjected to attachment by all debtors of that entity, of whatever type,where the assets form part of a body of funds which that entity has allocated for aprincipal activity governed by private law.”).163 Ernest K. Bankas, The State Immunity Controversy in International Law 321