Kalamazoo Spice Extraction Co. v. The Provisional Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia

729 F.2d 422 (1984)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Kalamazoo Spice Extraction Co. v. The Provisional Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
729 F.2d 422 (1984)

Facts

The Kalamazoo Spice Extraction Co. (Kal-Spice) (defendant) was an American corporation that held a substantial majority interest in an Ethiopian corporation called the Ethiopian Spice Extraction Company (ESESCO). The Provisional Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia (PMGSE) (plaintiff) was the provisional Ethiopian government that came into power in 1974. In pursuit of its socialist policy, PMGSE seized the majority of shares of ESESCO in February 1975, thereby reducing Kal-Spice’s ownership interest in ESESCO by more than half. Kal-Spice sought compensation from PMGSE in the amount of $11,000,000, but PMGSE responded with an offer of the equivalent of $450,000 in Ethiopian currency, which Kal-Spice rejected. Shortly before PMGSE expropriated Kal-Spice’s shares in ESESCO, Kal-Spice placed a large order for spices to be delivered to its facilities in Michigan. To fulfill the order, ESESCO shipped over $1.9 million worth of spices to Michigan, some before the PMGSE’s expropriation of the majority of ESESCO shares and some after. Kal-Spice initially made payments on the spices it received but ultimately ceased paying on the order after realizing that PMGSE was not going to compensate Kal-Spice for the ESESCO shares PMGSE had expropriated. PMGSE sued Kal-Spice for breach of contract, and Kal-Spice counterclaimed for the losses it suffered from PMGSE’s expropriation of Kal-Spice’s ESESCO shares. At the time of the expropriation, the United States and Ethiopia were parties to the United States-Ethiopia Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations (treaty), which provided that property belonging to companies from either the U.S. or Ethiopia would not be taken without prompt payment of just and effective compensation. The district court dismissed Kal-Spice’s counterclaim on the grounds that the act-of-state doctrine precluded adjudication of Kal-Spice’s claim for damages against PMGSE. Kal-Spice appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Keith, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership