the Court lacks jurisdiction over the defendants under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1611 (1988) (“FSIA”); (2) that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendants violates due process; and (3) that the Court should dismiss the complaint under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act The FSIA provides that foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities are immune from suit in United States courts unless the conduct complained of fits within various specified exceptions. See Letelier v. Republic of Chile, 748 F.2d 790, 793 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1125, 105 S.Ct. 2656, 86 L.Ed.2d 273 (1985); see also Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 109 S.Ct. 683, 102 L.Ed.2d 818 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs argue that Argentina and Banco
holding that a determination of whether the defendants actions constituted a taking under the louisiana constitution does not implicate any issues of federal law and thus does not provides a basis for a federal district court to exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction holding that the jones act provides an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction holding that the fsia provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in federal court holding the federal tort claims act did not permit exercise of pendant jurisdiction over additional parties as to which no basis for federal jurisdiction existed holding that an entity majorityowned by an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state is itself an agency or instrumentality of that foreign state under the fsia