|
''Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.'' 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.〔''Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.'', 134 S. Ct. 2250, 189 L. Ed. 2d 234 (2014).〕〔''See The Supreme Court, 2013 Term - Leading Cases'', 128 Harv. L. Rev. 381 (2014) http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/11/republic-of-argentina-v-nml-capital-ltd/〕 On the same day as it announced this opinion the Supreme Court denied Argentina's appeal of a court order prohibiting Argentina from favorably preferencing certain creditors.〔''NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina'', 727 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 2013).〕〔Lyle Denniston, The Argentine bond saga, made simple, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 11, 2014, 9:13 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/the-argentine-bond-saga-made-simple/〕 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〔''BG Group Plc v. Republic of Argentina'', 134 S. Ct. 1198, 572 U.S., 188 L. Ed. 2d 220 (2014).〕 and ''Daimler AG v. Bauman'' involving atrocities committed by the Argentinian military junta during its Dirty War.〔''The Supreme Court, 2013 Term - Leading Cases'', 128 Harv. L. Rev. 311 (2014) http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/11/daimler-ag-v-bauman/〕 ==Background== In 2001 Argentina was in a severe economic depression. NML Capital, a 'vulture fund' that specializes in distressed sovereign debt, purchased at extreme discounts Argentine public bonds off a panicking market.〔''NML Capital, Ltd. v. Banco Central de la Republica Arg.'', 652 F.3d 172 (2d Cir.2011)(vacating attachment of central bank reserves)〕 Argentina then defaulted on $103 billion of debt.〔''EM Ltd. v. Republic of Arg.'', 473 F.3d 463 (2d Cir.2007)(affirming vacatur)〕 After announcing that it would not pay its debts Argentina offered its creditors a choice: accept new bonds worth 70% less, or receive nothing.〔''Aurelius Capital Partners, LP v. Republic of Arg.'', 584 F.3d 120 (2d Cir.2009)〕 The vast majority of bondholders accepted the new bonds. NML Capital did not.〔''NML Capital Ltd. v. Republic of Arg.'', 680 F.3d 254 (2d Cir.2012)〕 Instead, NML Capital brought a collection action against Argentina in Manhattan federal district court. 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.〔''NML Capital, 652 F.3d 172'' at 177 fn.6.〕 Argentina responded by pulling its assets out of the United States. 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.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=www.itlos.org: Case No. 20 )〕 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. " On Argentina's appeal the Second Circuit affirmed the discovery order.〔''EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina'', 695 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2012).〕 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. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|