We hold only that the “other liability” language does not unequivocally express the will of the parties to waive immunity from prejudgment attachment. In so holding, we are in accord with the majority of courts (all district courts) that have addressed the issue. Security Pacific National Bank v. Iran, 513 F.Supp. 864, 879-80 (C.D.Cal.1981); New England Merchants National Bank v. Iran Power Generation & Transmission Co., 502 F.Supp. 120, 126-27 (S.D.N.Y.1981), remanded on other grounds, 646 F.2d 779 (2 Cir.1981); E-Systems, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 491 F.Supp. 1294, 1300-02 (N.D.Tex.1980); Reading & Bates Corp. v. National Iranian Oil Co., 478 F.Supp. 724, 728 (S.D.N.Y.1979); Behring International, Inc. v. Imperial Iranian Air Force, 475 F.Supp. 383, 392-93 (D.N.J.1979) (<HOLDING>). Contra, Reading & Bates Drilling Co. v.
holding that an insurers obligation to defend an insured was a property interest subject to prejudgment attachment holding that the waiver of immunity from other liability did not explicitly waive immunity from prejudgment attachment but supporting the attachment on other grounds holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional recognizing that under texas law governmental immunity embraces two principles immunity from liability and immunity from suit