Legal analysis of Saudi PIF ownership and FSIA immunity for NCB

790 or created under the laws of a third coun- try. [12] In Dole Food, the Supreme Court held “that only direct ownership of a ma- jority of shares by the foreign state satis- fies the statutory requirement” outlined in § 1608(b). 538 U.S. at 474, 123 S.Ct. 1655. Accordingly, the Kingdom of Saudi Ara- bia’s ownership of NCB must be direct for NCB to enjoy immunity under the FSIA. That is, NCB will not be deemed an instru- mentality of the Kingdom if the PIF, its majority owner, is determined to be an agency, instrumentality, or organ of the Kingdom. See § 16030o)(2) Gtating agen- cy or instrumentality is entity whose ma- jority ownership interest is held by either the foreign state or a political subdivision thereof); Filler v. Hanvit Bank, 378 F.3d 213 (2d Cir.2004) (holding an organ’s own- ership of two banks did not, in turn, make the banks organs or instrumentalities of foreign state); see also In re Ski Train Fire in Kaprun, Austria, 198 F.Supp.2d 420, 426 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (holding ski resort owner, which was owned in part by instru- mentality of Austrian government, was not instrumentality because it was not owned directly by the state or a subdivision there- of); Hyatt Corp. v. Stanton, 945 F.Supp. 675, 688 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (concluding “that corporations a majority of whose shares are owned by agencies or instrumentalities of foreign states are not themselves agen- cies or instrumentalities”). Thus, NCB must demonstrate that the PIF is the equivalent of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or a political subdivision thereof. The PIF was established by Royal De- cree with the sole function of “financing . investments in productive projects of a commercial nature whether they belong to the Government or the industrial lend- ing institutions connected to it or to its public corporations and whether these projects are undertaken independently or 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES in partnership between these administra- tive parties and private institutions.” PIF Charter 12, at Berger Aff. Ex. 4B (“PIF Charter”); Affidavit of Abdallah Bin Ha- mad Al-Wohaibi 13, the Director of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Fi- nance, at Berger Aff. Ex. 4 (“Al-Wohaibi Aff.”). Its board of directors are all Saudi officials named in its charter, its employ- ees are civil servants, and the Ministry of Finance is responsible for its costs. Jd. 114, 8, 10; see also PIF Charter 114, 7. Its board must submit an annual report to Saudi Arabia’s Council of Ministers sum- marizing its financial position and major operations. Al-Wohaibi Aff. 110. It has no separate legal status from the Ministry of Finance. /d. 14. The PIF holds shares of corporations and operational assets, “generally ... on behalf of the Ministry of Finance.” Jd. 19. It may be sued as a department of the Ministry of Finance, and as such, the Ministry of Finance would be named as the defendant. Jd. 112. It funds investments on behalf of the Kingdom and it provides financing terms for projects that commercial lenders do not. Id. 15; Supplemental Al-Wohaibi Aff. 118-10 (hereinafter “Supp. Al-Wohai- bi Aff.”). a. Status of the PIF In Filler v. Hanvit Bank, a case with facts very similar to those presented here, the Second Circuit reiterated Dole Food’s requirement of direct ownership for instru- mentality status. Two defendants were commercial banks majority-owned by the Korean Deposit Insurance Corporation (““KDIC”), a “governmental institution” run by the Korean Ministry of Finance and the Economy of the Republic of Ko- rea. Filler, 378 F.3d at 215-16. In deter- mining if KDIC was an organ of Korea, the court considered several factors: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017855