Triple A International, Inc. v. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, 721 F.3d 415

Triple A International (Michigan corp.) sold military equipment to Zaire in 1993; equipment shipped from South Korea to Zaire by a South Korean manufacturer.
Triple A repeatedly sought payment for ~$14,070,000; suit filed in 2010 against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (successor to Zaire) for breach of contract.
Congo moved to dismiss under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), claiming sovereign immunity; district court granted the motion and dismissed the case.
Triple A argued FSIA’s commercial-activity exception applies because Zaire contracted with a U.S. company and Triple A performed contractual obligations in the U.S., invoking 28 U.S.C. §§ 1603(e), 1605(a)(2).
The Sixth Circuit reviewed the jurisdictional question de novo and affirmed dismissal on sovereign-immunity grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FSIA §1605(a)(2)’s first clause ("commercial activity carried on in the United States") covers an overseas sale where the foreign state contracted with a U.S. company and the U.S. company performed some obligations in the U.S.	Triple A: §1603(e)’s phrase "having substantial contact with the United States" means the first clause applies because Zaire’s purchase had substantial U.S. contacts (contracting with a U.S. firm; some performance in U.S.).	Congo: No commercial activity was carried on in the United States by Zaire/Congo; FSIA immunity therefore bars suit.	Court: Rejected Triple A’s reading; first clause requires the foreign state’s commercial activity to be carried on in the U.S.; substantial-contact reading cannot subsume overseas activity and would render the statute’s structure incoherent. Sovereign immunity affirmed.
Whether the Congo had sufficient U.S. contacts to support personal jurisdiction under FSIA’s contacts requirement (concurring view)	Triple A: Implicitly relies on contacts with the U.S. via its own U.S. operations.	Congo: No direct contacts — no representatives in U.S., no orders or shipments through U.S., no direct effect in U.S.	Concurrence: Agrees FSIA requires minimum contacts; alleged facts show insufficient Congo contacts with the U.S.; jurisdiction lacking.

O’Bryan v. Holy See, 556 F.3d 361 (6th Cir.) (standard of de novo review for FSIA jurisdictional determinations)
Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, 556 U.S. 848 (Supreme Court) (FSIA establishes general sovereign-immunity rule)
Globe Nuclear Servs. & Supply v. AO Techsnabexport, 376 F.3d 282 (4th Cir.) (interpretation of commercial-activity carried on in the U.S.)
Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Arg., 965 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.) (acts performed in the U.S. in connection with overseas commercial activity)
Republic of Arg. v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607 (Supreme Court) (direct-effect doctrine under FSIA)
Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court) (textual distinctions among statutory clauses are significant)
TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (Supreme Court) (avoid interpretations that render statutory provisions superfluous)