Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.
134 S. Ct. 2250
| SCOTUS | 2014Background
- Argentina defaulted on external debt in 2001 and restructured most debt in 2005 and 2010.
- NML Capital, Ltd. prevailed in 11 debt-collection actions in SDNY to collect the judgments.
- NML sought postjudgment discovery by serving subpoenas on two nonparty banks (BOA and BNA) for records of Argentina’s global financial transactions.
- District Court granted the subpoenas to discover extraterritorial assets; allowed narrowing and confidentiality measures.
- Second Circuit affirmed, rejecting Argentina’s claim that FSIA immunized it from such discovery.
- Supreme Court held FSIA does not provide a discovery immunity; discovery of extraterritorial assets may proceed
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FSIA bar postjudgment discovery of extraterritorial assets? | Argentina argues FSIA immunizes extraterritorial assets from discovery. | NML contends discovery is allowed as it targets assets for potential execution, not attachment. | No FSIA discovery immunity; discovery may proceed |
| What is the scope of discovery permitted in aid of execution against a foreign state's assets? | Argentina asserts limited discovery confined to assets within the United States or clearly executable. | NML contends broad discovery of worldwide assets is permissible to locate executables. | Court assumes discretionary proportionality but allows broad information-gathering about assets |
| Does FSIA contain a textual basis displacing Rule 69 discovery rules in postjudgment proceedings? | Argues FSIA silent on postjudgment discovery implies protection; discovery is outside FSIA text. | FSIA's comprehensive framework governs immunity; absence of explicit discovery provision should not create immunity. | FSIA does not expressly limit postjudgment discovery; discovery allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U. S. 480 (U.S. 1983) (sovereign immunity is a matter of grace, not constitutional constraint)
- Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U. S. 677 (U.S. 2004) (FSIA replaces executive-driven immunity with comprehensive framework)
- Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. United States Dist. Court, 482 U. S. 522 (U.S. 1987) (absence of explicit discovery-immunity provision; stays and comity considerations)
- EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2012) (discovery in aid of execution against foreign state; prior rulings cited)
- Weltover, Inc. v. Republic of Argentina, 504 U. S. 607 (U.S. 1992) (context of sovereign immunity and enforcement considerations)