United States: District Court for the District of Columbia Memorandum and Order in International Finance Corporation v. GDK Systems, Inc. and Hogan Systems, Inc. (Jurisdiction of Federal Courts; Claims by International Organizations; Constitutionality of IFC Statute)

1989 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 847-856
1956 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. E. Matecki

This article presents briefly the findings of a case study in which two questions are investigated:a) Did the idea of an International Finance Corporation, first publicly expounded by the United States International Development Advisory Board, have its source in a United States agency or in an international organization?b) What were the causes of the modification of policy announced by the United States government on November II, 1954, when it decided to support the establishment of the International Finance Corporation, and did international organizations have any part in bringing about this change of policy?


1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 828-830
Author(s):  
Edward M. Leigh

Plaintiff Zedan, an American citizen, brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for breach of a contract guaranteeing wages and profits. While performance under the contract occurred in Saudi Arabia, plaintiff alleged that the jurisdictional requirements under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. §§1330, 1602-1611 (1982)) (FSIA) were satisfied by a recruitment call in California from a representative of the royal overseer of a private Saudi company. The district court granted the Saudi motion to dismiss. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (per Silberman, J.) unanimously affirmed and held: (1) that the telephone call did not have the requisite substantiality of contact with the United States; (2) that it was not sufficient to form the basis of a cause of action; and (3) that the alleged breach did not have sufficient direct effect in the United States to satisfy the exceptions to immunity under the FSIA.


2007 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Vanneman

Basil Chapman retired from ACF Industries, a railroad-car maker, after thirty-eight years of service. In December 2003, he received an unexpected phone call at his West Virginia home from a union representative, who informed him that an ACF executive wanted to speak with him. When they spoke, the executive informed Mr. Chapman that ACF was planning on changing its retirees’ health coverage plan. The ACF plan would now have a lifetime maximum benefit cap on hospital and surgical expenses for each participant and would require retirees to make monthly contributions. According to court papers filed later, Mr. Chapman responded, “We have a contract. You can’t do that.” Then, he said that he would “file in federal court” against ACF. The next business day, ACF filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri asking the court to rule that retiree benefits were not vested and that ACF accordingly could alter benefits unilaterally. On January 26, 2004, Mr. Chapman, other named plaintiffs, and their union sued ACF in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.


2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 646-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Perkins ◽  
Sally Pei

On February 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Jam v. International Finance Corp., a case of critical importance for international organizations. The question presented in Jam was whether U.S. law affords international organizations absolute immunity from suit in the United States, or whether international organizations instead are entitled to only the more limited or “restrictive” immunity that applies to foreign sovereigns under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document