Antares Aircraft, L.P. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria
999 F.2d 33 (1993)

  • Antares (a US company) owned an airplane and leased it to Gambian Air. Gambian air failed to pay its bills. Not only did they not pay the lease on the plane, they also didn't bother to pay the pilots.
  • The pilots sued Gambian Air in Nigeria, and got the Nigerian court to attach the airplane to the lawsuit. Nigerian authorities confiscated the plane until the pilots' lawsuit could be settled.
  • Antares went to the Nigerian court and argued that the plane didn't belong to Gambian Air, it belonged to Antares. The Nigerian court released the plane so Antares could take it back.
  • When Antares went to get their plane, the Nigerian Airport Authority (NAA) said they couldn't have it until they paid the parking and landing fees that Gambian Air owed. Antares paid over $100k, but NAA still wouldn't release the airplane.
  • Antares sued NAA (who was wholly owned by the Nigerian government) in US court.
    • Antares claimed that NAA was engaged in extortion.
    • NAA argued that US courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the case based on sovereign immunity.
    • Antares argued that the claims were in relation to a commercial activity, and not a public act, and were therefore not covered by sovereign immunity based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) (28 U.S.C. 1602).
      • FSIA says that foreign States can be sued in US Courts for acts taken "in connection with a commercial activity" that have "a direct effect in the US."
  • The Appellate Court found that US Courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. Antares appealed.
  • The US Supreme Court vacated the judgment and told the Appellate Court to hear the case again in light of their recent decision in Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc. (504 U.S. 607 (1992)).
    • In Weltover the US Supreme Court found that when a foreign government is engaged in a commercial activity, they lose the privilege of sovereign immunity.
  • The Appellate Court found for the NAA and that US courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.
      • The Appellate Court looked to Weltover and agreed that this was a commercial activity as defined by FSIA.
        • Is operating an airport a commercial activity or a governmental responsibility? The Court found it was a commercial activity.
        • Weltover defined commercial activity as when a State acted as a private player within a market and not as a regulator of that market.
    • However, the Court found that there was no "direct effect in the US" from the activity and therefore, it did not fall within the FSIA exception.
      • The activity was not related to US commerce at all. The only connection was that the claim threatened the financial wellbeing of a US-owned company. That was not enough.
  • Basically, this case said that the FSIA exception to sovereign immunity is not extended to torts that have no relation to the US other than the fact that a US citizen/company is the one that suffered the harm.