792
function of “financing ... investments in productive projects of a commercial na- ture”).
NCB also urges that O'Connell Machin- ery Co. v. M.V. “Americana,” 734 F.2d 115 (2d Cir.1984), mandates the finding that the PIF is a political subdivision of the Kingdom. In O'Connell, the Second Cir- cuit reasoned that the legislative history of the FSIA indicated that “political subdivi- sions” were intended to include “all gov- ernmental units beneath the central gov- ernment.” Jd. (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 1487, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 15, reprinted in, 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6604, 6613). Given the PIF’s position under the Ministry of Fi- nance, O'Connell could lead to the conclu- sion that the PIF is a political subdivision of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Jd.; but see In re Ski Train Fire, 198 F.Supp.2d at 425 n. 9 (distinguishing O’Connell on grounds that the court based its holding on a finding that the Italian government dou- ble-tiered its administrative agencies); Ayatt, 945 F.Supp. at 683-84 (finding defi- nition of “political subdivision” in O’Con- nell too broad and suggesting the case should be limited to its facts and not ap- plied widely). In the twenty years since O'Connell was decided, however, courts have been inclined to limit the FSIA’s grant of immunity. See, eg., Dole Food, 538 U.S. at 4738-74, 128 8.Ct. 1655; Filler, 378 F.3d at 218. Accordingly, the Court will not rely on O'Connell here.
b. Limited Jurisdictional Discovery is Warranted
[13] The Court finds that resolution of the PIF’s and thereby NCB’s status is not determinable on the current record and, therefore, limited jurisdictional discovery is warranted. As explained above, the PIF could qualify either as an organ or political subdivision of the Kingdom of Sa- udi Arabia. Additionally, the affidavits on
349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES
which the parties ask the Court to rely have not been subjected to cross examina- tion and are rather self-serving. The par- ties should have the opportunity to take discovery of the jurisdictionally relevant facts. First City, 150 F.3d at 177; see also In re Magnetic Audiotape Antitrust Litig., 334 F.3d 204, 208 (2d Cir.2003) Gnstructing district court to permit discovery before granting motion to dismiss based on fact- sensitive, multi-factor test). Accordingly, NCB’s motion to dismiss for lack of sub- ject matter jurisdiction based on the FSIA is denied without prejudice. Limited ju- risdictional discovery will be permitted to explore PIF’s function, organizational structure, and place within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
D. Application of FSIA Exceptions to the Princes and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Three exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity are implicated in these mo- tions—the commercial activities exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), the state sponsor of terrorism exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7), and the torts exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5).
1. Commercial Activities Exception
[14] Section 1605(a)(2) states: A foreign state shall not be immune ... in any case ... in which the action is based ... upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a com- mercial activity of the foreign state else- where; or upon an act outside the terri- tory 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). The statute de- fines “commercial activity” as “either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017857