- 85 -
We compare the foregoing elements with those elements in the
decided cases where the courts have equated a separate legal
entity to the government of which it was a part.
In Cherry Cotton Mills v. United States, 327 U.S. 536
(1946), the Supreme Court held that, where a party brought a
claim for tax refund in the Court of Claims, the Reconstruction
Finance Corporation (RFC) could bring a counterclaim for debts
owed under the statute authorizing counterclaims "on the part of
the Government of the United States". Describing the RFC, the
Court stated:
Its Directors are appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate; its activities are all aimed
at accomplishing a public purpose; all of its money
comes from the Government; its profits, if any, go to
the Government; its losses the Government must bear.
That the Congress chose to call it a corporation does
not alter its characteristics so as to make it
something other than what it actually is, an agency
selected by Government to accomplish purely
governmental purposes. * * * [Id. at 539.]
In First Natl. City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio, 462 U.S.
611 (1983), the Supreme Court allowed Citibank to apply a setoff
of the value of its assets seized by the Cuban Government,
against amounts sought by Bancec, a Cuban Government owned bank,
from Citibank. The Court found that the Cuban Government
supplied all the capital and owned all the stock of Bancec.
Bancec's stated purpose was to contribute to and collaborate with
the international trade policy of the Government. Bancec was
empowered to act as the Government's exclusive agent in foreign
Page: Previous 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011