Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.

Last updated

Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 21, 2014
Decided June 16, 2014
Full case nameRepublic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.
Docket no. 12-842
Citations573 U.S. 134 ( more )
134 S. Ct. 2250; 189 L. Ed. 2d 234
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorEM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2012)
Holding
No provision in the FSIA immunizes a foreign-sovereign judgment debtor from post judgment discovery of information concerning its extraterritorial assets.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Kagan
DissentGinsburg
Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573 U.S. 134 (2014), is a U.S. Supreme Court opinion regarding foreign sovereign immunity. After defaulting on its debt and losing a federal collection action, Argentina claimed that its foreign assets were immune from discovery. The Court found that no such immunity existed. [1] [2]

Contents

On the same day as it announced this opinion the Supreme Court denied Argentina's appeal of a court order prohibiting Argentina from giving preference to certain creditors. [3] [4] This was the third case involving Argentina that term, with BG Group Plc v. Republic of Argentina involving Argentina's refusal to obey a neutral arbitrator's order [5] and Daimler AG v. Bauman involving atrocities committed by the Argentinian military junta during its Dirty War. [6] [7]

Background

In 2001 Argentina was in a severe economic depression. NML Capital, a 'vulture fund' that specializes in distressed sovereign debt, purchased Argentine public bonds at extreme discounts off a panicking market. [8] Argentina then defaulted on $103 billion of debt. [9] After announcing that it would not pay its debts, Argentina offered its creditors a choice during the 2005 debt restructuring: par bonds due in 2038 or 70% discount debt maturing in 2033, with warrants that paid investors based on annual economic growth issued with the bonds as part of the same offer. In 2012, Morgan Stanley estimated that those creditors that accepted the 2005 debt swap offer obtained 90% returns on their investment, above the average for emerging market debt (70% returns) during the same period. [10] [11] The vast majority of bondholders accepted the new bonds. NML Capital did not. [12]

Instead, NML Capital brought a collection action against Argentina in Manhattan federal district court. [2] Finding that Argentina did have to pay its debt, District Judge Thomas Griesa ordered Argentina to pay plaintiff $2.4 billion and, pari passu , to stop favoring other creditors over NML Capital. [13]

Argentina responded by pulling its assets out of the United States. [2] Seeking to satisfy the judgment order, NML Capital undertook a worldwide search for Argentina's assets, at one point convincing Ghana to seize the Argentine Navy's ARA Libertad and forcing Argentina's president to charter private airplanes to avoid having her state aircraft confiscated. [14] [15]

As part of its search for attachable assets NML Capital served subpoenas on Bank of America and Banco de la Nación Argentina. Argentina moved to quash, claiming that as a sovereign the locations of its assets were immune from discovery. Judge Griesa disagreed, ordering discovery on all assets "reasonably calculated to lead to attachable property." [2] On Argentina's appeal the Second Circuit affirmed the discovery order. [16] Still refusing to comply, Argentina then petitioned for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States, and the petition was granted. [2] Arguments were held on April 21, 2014, with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler appearing as a friend supporting Argentina and Theodore Olson appearing for the hedge funds. [1]

Opinion

The Supreme Court affirmed, with Justice Scalia writing for the seven member majority. [2] Scalia first traces the history of foreign sovereign immunity in the United States, from initially undisturbed Executive discretion, to the "muddling" noncommercial acts distinction the State Department adopted in 1952, to Congress's creation of the "comprehensive " Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. [2]

Scalia then turns to the statute's text finding the FSIA does not expressly address post judgment discovery. [2] Argentina claimed that there is "meaning from this silence ", and since discovery is not expressly permitted it is, then, prohibited. Scalia disagrees. Emphasizing that FSIA is the comprehensive framework for sovereign immunity, Scalia finds that any claimed immunity must stand or fall on the Act's text alone. [17] Noting that the "riddle " of Congress's motive was not "ours to solve ", Scalia found that since Congress did not mention foreign sovereign immunity from post judgment discovery in the Act, there can be no such immunity. [2]

Dissent

Justice Ginsburg dissented. Noting that FISA and international law only allow the attachment of commercial property, Ginsburg objected to the discovery order's "unlimited inquiry ". Because NML Capital had offered no proof that foreign noncommercial assets were subject to attachment, Ginsburg questioned what authorization a US court could have to act as a "clearinghouse for information " about Argentina's noncommercial property. [2]

Reaction

One month later Argentina, again, defaulted on its debt. Argentina then unsuccessfully attempted to sue the United States at the Hague for "judicial malevolence". [18] The United Nations General Assembly condemned debt collection on sovereign debt. [19] After Argentina continued to refuse to follow court orders, Judge Griesa held it in contempt. [20] Creditors worldwide imitated NML Capital, with Argentina losing lawsuits to creditors in Germany and England. [21] [22]

On November 22, 2015, Argentina elected Mauricio Macri as its new president. [23] By February 19, 2016, Argentina had reached a settlement with its bondholders and Judge Griesa lifted his injunction. On April 13, the Second Circuit affirmed, from the bench, directly after hearing oral arguments. [24]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Holdout problem</span> Economic issue of securities

In finance, a holdout problem occurs when a bond issuer is in default or nears default, and launches an exchange offer in an attempt to restructure debt held by existing bond holders. Such exchange offers typically require the consent of holders of some minimum portion of the total outstanding debt, often in excess of 90%, because, unless the terms of the bond provide otherwise, non-consenting bondholders will retain their legal right to demand repayment of their bonds at par. Bondholders who withhold their consent and retain their right to seek the full repayment of original bonds, may disrupt the restructuring process, creating a situation known as the holdout problem.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act</span> United States law

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) is a United States law, codified at Title 28, §§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), and 1602–1611 of the United States Code, that established criteria as to whether a foreign sovereign state is immune from the jurisdiction of the United States' federal or state courts. The Act also establishes specific procedures for service of process, attachment of property and execution of judgment in proceedings against a foreign state. The FSIA provides the exclusive basis and means to bring a civil suit against a foreign sovereign in the United States. It was signed into law by United States President Gerald Ford on October 21, 1976.

The Nonintercourse Act is the collective name given to six statutes passed by the United States Congress in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834 to set boundaries of American Indian reservations. The various acts were also intended to regulate commerce between White Americans and citizens of Indigenous nations. The most notable provisions of the act regulate the inalienability of aboriginal title in the United States, a continuing source of litigation for almost 200 years. The prohibition on purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government has its origins in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783.

Distressed securities are securities over companies or government entities that are experiencing financial or operational distress, default, or are under bankruptcy. As far as debt securities, this is called distressed debt. Purchasing or holding such distressed-debt creates significant risk due to the possibility that bankruptcy may render such securities worthless.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vulture fund</span> Fund that invests in distressed assets

A vulture fund is a hedge fund, private-equity fund or distressed debt fund, that invests in debt considered to be very weak or in default, known as distressed securities. Investors in the fund profit by buying debt at a discounted price on a secondary market and then using numerous methods to subsequently sell the debt for a larger amount than the purchasing price. Debtors include companies, countries, and individuals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Argentine debt restructuring</span> Process following Argentinas Great Depression

The Argentine debt restructuring is a process of debt restructuring by Argentina that began on January 14, 2005, and allowed it to resume payment on 76% of the US$82 billion in sovereign bonds that defaulted in 2001 at the depth of the worst economic crisis in the nation's history. A second debt restructuring in 2010 brought the percentage of bonds under some form of repayment to 93%, though ongoing disputes with holdouts remained. Bondholders who participated in the restructuring settled for repayments of around 30% of face value and deferred payment terms, as well as warrants that paid investors based on annual economic growth as part of the same offer, and began to be paid punctually; the value of their nearly worthless bonds also began to rise. The remaining 7% of bondholders were later repaid 25% less than they were demanding, after centre-right and US-aligned leader Mauricio Macri came to power in 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diane S. Sykes</span> American judge (born 1957)

Diane Schwerm Sykes is an American jurist and lawyer who serves as the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She served as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 1999 to 2004.

Robert David Sack is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Thomas Poole Griesa was a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York from 1972 to 2017 and its Chief Judge from 1993 to 2000.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sovereign immunity in the United States</span> Legal protection of federal, state and tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

The Parker immunity doctrine is an exemption from liability for engaging in antitrust violations. It applies to the state when it exercises legislative authority in creating a regulation with anticompetitive effects, and to private actors when they act at the direction of the state after it has done so. The doctrine is named for the Supreme Court of the United States case in which it was initially developed, Parker v. Brown.

The Columbia Journal of Transnational Law is a law review edited and published by students at Columbia Law School. One of the oldest student-run international law journals in the United States, it publishes scholarly articles and student notes on issues of transnational law.

Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N. A., 562 U.S. 61 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the means test in Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The means test had been adopted by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, and Ransom is one of several cases in which the Supreme Court addressed provisions of that act.

United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Little Tucker Act, which provides jurisdiction to federal courts for certain claims brought against the federal government, does not apply to lawsuits brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jubilee USA Network</span> US-based nonprofit organization

Jubilee USA Network is a nonprofit financial reform organization based in Washington, D.C. Jubilee USA's work began in conjunction with the global Jubilee 2000 movement, founded in the late 1990s to advocate for debt relief for developing countries. It is "an alliance of more than 75 U.S. organizations, 650 faith communities and 50 Jubilee global partners."

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. The Court held that civil service of a lawsuit against the government of Sudan was invalid because the civil complaints and summons had been sent to the Embassy of Sudan in Washington, D.C. rather than to the Sudanese Foreign Minister in Khartoum.

Jam v. International Finance Corp., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. The Supreme Court ruled that international organizations, such as the World Bank Group's financing arm, the International Finance Corporation, can be sued in US federal courts for conduct arising from their commercial activities. It specifically held that international organizations shared the same sovereign immunity as foreign governments. This was a reversal from existing jurisprudence, which held that international organizations had near-absolute immunity from lawsuits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the International Organizations Immunities Act.

Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851 (2008), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which clarified the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as regards money damages sought by a foreign government, the Republic of the Philippines, via its Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). The case stemmed out of disputes surrounding one of the overseas investments and bank accounts of Ferdinand Marcos, Arelma S.A.. Marcos was President of the Philippines until being overthrown in the People Power Revolution.

Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act with its 2008 amendments, whether plaintiffs in federal lawsuits against foreign countries may seek punitive damages for cause of actions prior to enactment of the amended law, with the specific case dealing with victims and their families from the 1998 United States embassy bombings. The Court ruled unanimously in May 2020 that punitive damages can be sought from foreign nations in such cases for preenactment conduct.

<i>Acree v. Republic of Iraq</i> United States legal case

Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 370 F.3d 41, was a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. U.S. military personnel who had been tortured by Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War sued for damages, arguing that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) made state sponsors of terror liable. Iraq never contested the lawsuit, but the U.S. federal government intervened. The Court of Appeals ultimately decided against the plaintiffs, saying that the FSIA did not create new causes of action against foreign states. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the plaintiffs' appeal.

References

  1. 1 2 Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573 U.S. 134 (2014).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The Supreme Court, 2013 Term - Leading Cases, 128 Harv. L. Rev. 381 (2014)
  3. NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 727F.3d230 (2d Cir.2013).
  4. "The Argentine bond saga, made simple". SCOTUSblog. June 11, 2014. Retrieved May 24, 2023.
  5. BG Group Plc v. Republic of Argentina, 572 U.S. 25 (2014).
  6. Daimler AG v. Bauman ,No. 11-965 , 571 U.S. 117 (2014).
  7. hlr (November 10, 2014). "Daimler AG v. Bauman". Harvard Law Review. Retrieved May 24, 2023.
  8. NML Capital, Ltd. v. Banco Central de la Republica Arg., 652 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2011) (vacating attachment of central bank reserves).
  9. EM Ltd. v. Republic of Arg., 473 F.3d 463 (2d Cir. 2007) (affirming vacatur).
  10. Drew Benson. "Billionaire Hedge Funds Snub 90% Returns". Bloomberg News.
  11. Aurelius Capital Partners, LP v. Republic of Argentina, 584F.3d120 (2d Cir.2009).
  12. NML Capital Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 680F.3d254 (2d Cir.2012).
  13. NML Capital, 652 F.3d at 177 fn.6.
  14. "www.itlos.org: Case No. 20". itlos.org.
  15. "A languid Tango". The Economist. January 16, 2013.
  16. EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 695F.3d201 (2d Cir.2012).
  17. Cf. Scalia's opinion for the Court in Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607 (1992), where Argentina was denied immunity for an earlier default because "[f]ortunately... the FSIA was not written on a clean slate".
  18. "Opinio Juris » Blog Archive I've Thought About It Some More: And I Still Think Argentina's World Court Lawsuit Against the U.S. is Bogus - Opinio Juris". opiniojuris.org. August 22, 2014.
  19. Walter Bianchi; Richard Lough (September 10, 2014). "Argentina says U.N. vote vindicates its debt fight against 'vultures'". Reuters.
  20. "Opinio Juris » Blog Archive Further Thoughts: It is Indeed Legal for a U.S. Court Hold Argentina in Contempt - Opinio Juris". opiniojuris.org. October 4, 2014.
  21. "Knighthead Master Fund LP & Ors v The Bank of New York Mellon & Anor [2015] EWHC 270 (Ch) (13 February 2015)". bailii.org.
  22. "Argentina Loses German Top Court Case Over Bond Payments". Bloomberg.com. February 24, 2015. Retrieved May 24, 2023.
  23. Moyer, Liz (February 29, 2016). "Argentina's Debt Settlement Ends 15 Year Battle". The New York Times. Retrieved April 19, 2016.
  24. Wernau, Julie (April 13, 2016). "U.S. Court Clears Way for Argentina to Re-Enter Capital Markets". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 19, 2016.