clearly embracing all dates in 1988. Consequently, no statute of limitations bar existed as of March, 1988, nor is there any barrier to the court deeming refiling to have been made pursuant to 28 USC § 1653 or Rule 15 as of November 10, 1988.
PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND SERVICE
28 USC § 1330(b) grants the federal courts personal jurisdiction over a foreign state so long as service is made through the procedures provided in 28 USC § 1608, combined with actual notice, all of which were fulfilled here as described above. Moreover, defendant which deliberately - and "not occasionally or casually, but with a fair measure of permanence or continuity," Beacon Enterprises, Inc. v. Menzies, 715 F.2d 757, 762 (2d Cir. 1983) - promoted ship sales through its governmental office in Manhattan, of the very type involved in the present case, had sufficient contacts with the United States and this district to satisfy due process. See Affidavit of William Perry, May 3, 1989. This conclusion is buttressed by two further circumstances which enhance the fairness of permitting suit against defendant in this country:
(a) International enforcement of arbitration under the Convention on the Recognition of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10, 1958, pursuant to 9 USC § 201 and contained as a note to 9 USCA201, is only practicable if awards can be enforced wherever defaulters have assets and not merely where they have engaged in the business out of which the arbitration grew. The United States, France, Romania, and the Federal Republic of Germany acceded to the convention. The convention lists various barriers to enforcement, such as lack of notice of the arbitration (Article V(1)(b)), but does not require that the underlying activity occur in the enforcing state - a requirement which would, of course, defeat the effectiveness of the convention, an outcome not to be presumed.
(b) Prejudgment attachments to obtain quasi in rem jurisdiction over assets of foreign instrumentalities are barred, absent specific explicit separate consent, see S&S Machinery Co v. Masinexportimport, 706 F.2d 411 (2d Cir. 1983), thus making it inappropriate to strain to deny personal jurisdiction to reach such assets by other means where minimal contacts exist and the objectives of an international convention call for this result.
ADDITION OF UZ AS DEFENDANT
Defendant states without qualification or limitation in its Memorandum of Law at 18 that Uz is "successor in interest to defendant" and "a state owned foreign trade company." As successor, it is bound by the acts of the current defendant, which cannot avoid its obligations by changing its name.
DISPOSITION OF PENDING MOTIONS
For the reasons discussed above, I find that the court has subject matter and personal jurisdiction, that no statute of limitations barrier exists to enforcement of the French court's affirmance of the arbitral award in this case, and that Uz should be joined as an additional defendant, thus eliminating any objection predicated upon failure to join it.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied and the motions of plaintiff for summary judgment and for addition of Uz as an additional defendant are granted.
Settle judgment on notice.
Dated: White Plains, N.Y., April 2, 1992
VINCENT L. BRODERICK, U.S.D.J.