611, 626-27, 103 S.Ct. 2591, 77 L.Ed.2d 46 (1983). It is also settled that privately-owned foreign corporations are protected by the due process clause. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). Nonetheless, the reasoning of Price, which this Court finds sound, counsels against affording the Mexican banks in this case the status of “persons” within the scope of that term as used in the Due Process Clause. First, focusing on the reasoning that foreign sovereigns are the analogues of state sovereigns, the Court notes that state agencies and instru-mentalities are not treated as distinct entities under the Constitution. See Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (<HOLDING>); State Highway Com. v. Utah Const. Co., 278
recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state holding the eleventh amendment bars suits in federal court against the state of kansas or one of its agencies recognizing that claims against a state under  1981 are barred by the eleventh amendment recognizing the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from suing a state holding that state agencies are treated as states under the eleventh amendment