^* [Reproduced from the text provided by the U.S. District Court. The Opinion and Order were filed on June 16, 1978.

[The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of October 21, 1976, appears at 15 I.L.M. 1388 (1976).]

^1/ An arbitrator appointed by the International Court of Justice subsequently found the nationalizations improper. However, the arbitrator's award and final order have been sealed pursuant to the settlement agreement between Libya, Texaco and Standard Oil of California. Because of my disposition of the immunity issue, I need not address the question of the propriety of Libya's actions.

^2/ A “foreign state” is defined in 28 U.S.C.A. §1603'(West 1978 Supp.) as including an “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state”; this, in turn, is defined as a separate legal person, a majority of whose ownership interest is owned by a foreign state, and which is neither a United States citizen nor a creation of a third nation. By this definition, NOC is clearly a “foreign state” for jurisdictional immunity purposes. Compare Edlow Internat. Co. v. Nuklearna Elektraraa itrsko, 441 F.Supp. 827 (D.D.C. 1977).

^3/ Since I make this assumption, I need not consider the significance of the cases and legislative-material concerning the conclusive effect of a foreign government's determination as to the interrelationship of and attribution of responsibility between two foreign entities such as Libya and NOC.

^4/ The one exception appears in 28 U.S.C.A. §1605(a)(3) (West 1978 Supp.), and involves expropriation of property physically located in the United States, an exception plainly irrelevant here.