Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
By Louis M. Solomon
Capital, Ltd., et al. v. Banco Central de la Republica Argentina (BCRA), et al., Dkt. Nos. 10-1487-cv-L, et al. (2d Cir. July 2011)
[enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version available from lexisONE Free Case Law] addresses
what the Court of Appeals describes as matters of first impression in the Circuit:
1) whether funds held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in an account of BCRA
(the central bank of Argentina) are immune from attachment and execution under the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, an issue requiring the Court to determine whether
the presumption of independence standard adumbrated by the Supreme Court in First
National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611
(1983) (Bancec) [enhanced version / unenhanced version ], applies to these assets; and 2) what is the proper meaning
of "property . . . of a foreign central bank or monetary authority held for its
own account" in Section 1611(b)(1) of the FSIA. (In a ruling by the District
Court subsequent to the orders on appeal here but prior to the Second Circuit's
decision (discussed here), the District Court held immune the assets there under
attack.) The Second Circuit's decision addresses the general issue of
the principal-agent conundrum but does so on the basis of a specific statute that
permitted it to avoid the thorny analysis usually entailed. Readers of
this blog will recall our recent four-part treatment of this issue (the most recent
of which is here).
In this decision, the Second Circuit
First, the Court of Appeals affirms the
District Court's determination that an earlier appeal seeking the same relief but
on different factual and legal grounds was not preclusive of the current action.
Second, even under an abuse of discretion
standard, the Circuit finds that the District Court erred - because of an error
of law. The District Court had determined that the bank's immunity under the
FSIA was dependent on its independence from the non-U.S. sovereign - that is, based
on an application of the Bancec standard. That was error, says the
Court of Appeals; "the plain langugage, history, and structure of [section] 1611(b)(1)
immunizes property of a foreign central bank or monetary authority held for
its own account without regard to whether the bank or authority is independent
from its parent state under Bancec".
Third, with respect to the meaning of
the phrase, "held for its own account", the Court of Appeals considered three candidates:
if the property is used for "traditional central banking activities"; if the property
is in an account "in the central bank's name"; and if the property is held for the
central bank's "own profit of advantage". The Court adopted none of these
but instead adopted a modified test: "property of a central bank is immune
from attachment if the cental bank uses the property for central banking functions
as such functions are normally understood, irrespective of their commercial nature".
Having decided the issues, the Court
of Appeals then recalled Argentina's "appalling record of keeping its promises to
its creditors", the Court quoting Jorge Luis Borges's phrase that one did not need
a "prodigous memory" to share the District Court's "understandable irritation" at
Argentina's "willful defiance of [its] obligations to honor the judgments of a federal
International Practice Law Blog for more analysis of international
and foreign law issues.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with
us through our corporate site.