Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
652 F.3d 172 *; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13655 **
NML CAPITAL, LTD. and EM LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BANCO CENTRAL DE LA REPÚBLICA ARGENTINA, Interested Non-Party-Appellant, THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant-Appellant.
Subsequent History: As Corrected November 9, 2011. As Amended September 1, 2011.
Later proceeding at EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 132 S. Ct. 1133, 181 L. Ed. 2d 974, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 875 (U.S., 2012)
US Supreme Court certiorari denied by EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 133 S. Ct. 23, 183 L. Ed. 2d 692, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4819 (U.S., 2012)
Related proceeding at NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Arg., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149661 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 17, 2012)
Prior History: EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 720 F. Supp. 2d 273, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34613 (S.D.N.Y., 2010)
Disposition: [**1] The Republic of Argentina ("the Republic") and interested non-party-appellant Banco Central de la República Argentina ("BCRA") appeal from orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Thomas P. Griesa, Judge) granting motions of plaintiffs-appellees EM Ltd. and NML Capital, Ltd. to attach funds held in BCRA's account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on the theory that, pursuant to First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611, 103 S. Ct. 2591, 77 L. Ed. 2d 46 (1983) ("Bancec"), those funds are attachable interests of the Republic. This case raises several questions of first impression in this circuit, including (1) whether sovereign immunity for central bank property "held for its own account" pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act § 1611(b)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 1611(b)(1), depends upon a presumption of the central bank's independence under Bancec, and (2) the proper definition of central bank property "held for its own account" under § 1611(b)(1). We hold that, irrespective of BCRA's status under Bancec, the funds in BCRA's account are immune from attachment pursuant to § 1611(b)(1). The orders of the District Court are therefore [**2] vacated and the cause is remanded with instructions to dismiss the orders of attachment and for such further proceedings as may be appropriate and consistent with this opinion.
Funds, attachment, immunity, district court, banks, foreign state, own account, reserves, monetary, motions, plaintiffs', billion, instruments, functions, waived, deposit, juridical, commercial activity, default, vacated, Global, final judgment, sovereign, Unrestricted, restraining, Fiscal, orders, federal court, dollar-denominated, transactions
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Adverse Determinations, Judgments, Enforcement & Execution, General Overview, International Law, Sovereign Immunity, Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Exceptions, Waivers, Banking Law, International Banking, Commercial Banks, Bank Accounts, Evidence, Inferences & Presumptions, Presumptions, Creation, Commercial Activities, Appellate Jurisdiction, Collateral Order Doctrine, Interlocutory Orders, Federal & State Interrelationships, Federal Common Law, Applicability, Preclusion of Judgments, Standards of Review, Clearly Erroneous Review, De Novo Review, Questions of Fact & Law, Res Judicata, Preliminary Considerations, Estoppel, Collateral Estoppel, Abuse of Discretion, Appellate Review of Decisions, Jurisdiction, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Construction & Interpretation, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Rebuttal of Presumptions