Vera v. Republic of Cuba
91 F. Supp. 3d 561
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Plaintiffs are U.S. judgment creditors holding domesticated judgments against the Republic of Cuba and seek post‑judgment discovery and turnover of Cuban‑related funds blocked under U.S. Treasury regulations and TRIA.
- Plaintiffs served information subpoenas under N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 5223, 5224 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a) on several banks, including BBVA, seeking information about Cuba‑linked accounts in New York and abroad.
- Most respondent banks agreed to a turnover procedure; BBVA and Standard Chartered resisted production for accounts outside New York.
- The district court previously found subject‑matter jurisdiction under the FSIA and ordered compliance with the subpoenas; BBVA moved for reconsideration arguing Daimler and the Second Circuit’s Gucci decision foreclose jurisdiction over foreign banks’ non‑New York branch information.
- The court denied BBVA’s reconsideration motion, holding BBVA’s New York branch may be compelled to produce information about foreign accounts (BBVA consented to jurisdiction under N.Y. Banking Law § 200 and post‑judgment discovery rules permit broad, worldwide inquiry in aid of execution).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may compel BBVA’s New York branch to produce information about accounts located outside New York in post‑judgment discovery | Plaintiffs: broad post‑judgment discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 and N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5223 permits inquiries into any assets relevant to execution, including foreign accounts reachable via the New York branch | BBVA: Daimler/Gucci limit general jurisdiction; New York branch contacts do not permit compulsion to produce information about non‑New York accounts | Held: Court may compel production; BBVA’s New York branch must provide responsive information, including concerning foreign accounts. |
| Whether Daimler/Gucci eliminated the power to subpoena foreign‑branch information held in New York for post‑judgment execution | Plaintiffs: Gucci/Daimler concern general jurisdiction of parties to suit, not post‑judgment discovery of third parties within forum; EM Ltd. preserves broad discovery in aid of execution | BBVA: Gucci requires courts to respect due process and limits on asserting jurisdiction over nonparty foreign banks as to extraterritorial information | Held: Gucci does not narrow post‑judgment discovery; EM Ltd. controls — once court has jurisdiction over the judgment debtor, it may order third‑party disclosure via local branch. |
| Whether BBVA consented to jurisdiction by registering as a foreign bank in New York | Plaintiffs: BBVA’s registration under NY Banking Law § 200 appoints the Superintendent/agent and yields consent to suit and regulatory oversight | BBVA: Registration insufficient to subject extraterritorial branch information to New York court’s authority | Held: Registration/authorization to operate in NY supports compelling BBVA’s NY branch to comply with subpoenas; court treats this as consent to regulatory oversight. |
| Whether comity or foreign‑law conflict requires limiting subpoenas for foreign‑located information | Plaintiffs: prior comity analysis was conducted; no new grounds shown to revisit | BBVA: Gucci signals need to weigh comity before reaching extraterritorial branches | Held: Court already considered comity in prior orders and declines to revisit; comity does not bar production here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (limits general jurisdiction; corporation is typically "at home" only where incorporated or has principal place of business)
- Gucci Am., Inc. v. Li, 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014) (applies Daimler to deny general jurisdiction over foreign bank for non‑New York branch assets in pre‑judgment asset freeze context)
- EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2012) (broad post‑judgment discovery in aid of execution; district court may subpoena third parties once it has jurisdiction over judgment debtor)
- Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 134 S. Ct. 2250 (2014) (recognizes New York law permits discovery of matters relevant to satisfaction of a judgment)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum contacts and reasonableness standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (explains distinction between general and specific jurisdiction)