of fact material to the sovereign acts defense. That conclusion we review de novo. A sovereign act is public and general in nature, not private and contractual. Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458, 461, 45 S.Ct. 344, 69 L.Ed. 736 (1925) (quoting Jones v. United States, 1 Ct.Cl. 383, 384-85, 1865 WL 1976 (1865)); Sun Oil Co. v. United States, 572 F.2d 786, 817, 215 Ct.Cl. 716 (1978). The determination does not always turn on whether the action was undertaken by a contracting officer. See, e.g., Sun Oil, 572 F.2d at 817 (stating that acts by the Secretary of the Interior “were not actions of public and general applicability, but were actions directed principally and primarily at plaintiffs’ contractual right”); Ottinger v. United States, 116 Ct.Cl. 282, 285, 88 F.Supp. 881 (1950) (<HOLDING>). The focus of the inquiry is thus the nature
holding that actions by the war manpower commission could be contractual when not taken pursuant to any general law or policy recognizing that a court may reverse the pelrbs actions where those actions are arbitrary capricious or an abuse of discretion    not supported by substantial evidence on the record taken as a whole or otherwise not in accordance with law holding that a written statement could not be regarded as an affidavit sufficient in law for any purpose because it was not sworn to by any one or before any officer holding statement not defamatory as matter of law that does not charge plaintiff with commission of a crime violation of any law or contract or with any unethical acts and business dealings holding that contracts are not binding before court approval because the debtorinpossession operates as a fiduciary any actions taken by the debtor are to be in the best interests of the creditor body as a whole for that reason  the debtors actions are subject to  review by the creditors of the estate and the bankruptcy court