Refinera de Cartagena S.A.S., 1:23-mc-00455

Refinería de Cartagena S.A.S. ("Reficar") is the largest unsecured creditor of CB&I UK Limited and McDermott International Holdings B.V., which are undergoing restructuring in England and the Netherlands after failing to pay a $937.5 million arbitration award.
Reficar sought discovery from Mason Capital Management, LLC ("Mason"), a New York-based hedge fund and member of the Ad Hoc Group of secured creditors in the foreign proceedings, under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to challenge the restructuring plans.
The foreign restructuring plans would largely discharge CB&I’s debts to Reficar, offering only a minimal payment, which Reficar contends is unfair and seeks to contest using evidence about underlying valuation and plan alternatives.
Mason opposed the discovery, arguing relevance, burden, and privilege grounds, and pointing to available procedures for discovery in the foreign proceedings.
The court narrowed Reficar’s requests substantially, focusing on valuations and alternatives considered by Mason that were shared with the CB&I entities, from June 1, 2022 onward, and allowed for a limited deposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Mason subject to § 1782 discovery?	Mason is found in the District, Reficar is an interested person.	Mason argues no relevance; discovery is unnecessary and available in the foreign forums.	Statutory requirements met; Mason is found in the District and discovery is for use in foreign proceeding.
Whether discovery is "for use" in foreign proceedings	Requested materials are relevant to contesting valuations and plan in foreign restructuring.	Relevance disputed; claims info is not useful or is privileged/minimally relevant.	Reficar met minimal 'for use' burden; materials potentially helpful.
Whether foreign tribunals are receptive	English and Dutch courts receptive, no contrary proof.	No challenge to Reficar's position on receptivity.	Tribunals are generally receptive; favors Reficar.
Whether the requests are unduly burdensome or intrusive	Requests are narrowly tailored, and mostly non-privileged/non-cumulative.	Requests are burdensome, seek privileged/cumulative info, and Reficar already had extensive discovery abroad.	Court narrows requests further; denies overbroad or previously withdrawn topics, sets time limits, and limits deposition.

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (Supreme Court sets out discretionary factors for § 1782 applications)
Brandi-Dohrn v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, 673 F.3d 76 (Section 1782 statutory requirements construed)
Euromepa S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 51 F.3d 1095 (foreign tribunal receptivity under § 1782; general guidance for U.S. district courts)
Kiobel by Samkalden v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 895 F.3d 238 (Section 1782 twin aims and judicial discretion explained)
Mees v. Buiter, 793 F.3d 291 (“for use” requirement, standards for § 1782 discovery)