of Appeals which have considered the constitutional question of whether the Fifth Amendment privilege provides protection for a witness once it has been determined that he has a reasonable fear of foreign prosecution have reached different conclusions. The Fourth Circuit and the Tenth Circuit have held that a fear of foreign prosecution is not a sufficient basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege. See United States v. (Under Seal) (Araneta), 794 F.2d 920, 926-28 (4th Cir.) (the Fifth Amendment may not be invoked by a witness who fears foreign prosecution unless that foreign country also honors the privilege against self-incrimination), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 924, 107 S.Ct. 331, 93 L.Ed.2d 303 (1986) [hereinafter Araneta ]; In re Parker, 411 F.2d 1067, 1069-70 (10th Cir.1969) (<HOLDING>), vacated as moot sub nom. Parker v. United
recognizing that although the foreign action would resolve a central issue in the federal case because termination of the foreign case would not necessarily end the federal litigation the district courts stay order was not final holding that for a domestic corporation the foreign principal place of business does not count holding that fedrcrimp 6e would prevent disclosure of witnesss testimony to foreign officials thereby negating fear of foreign prosecution and alternatively that the fifth amendment provides no shelter  against incrimination in a foreign jurisdiction where federal domestic immunity has been granted holding that the fsia provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in federal court holding that foreign states prosecution did not bar subsequent florida prosecution for same conduct