Abstract
On 16 June 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the petition for a writ of certiorari stemming from the dispute over the meaning of the pari passu clause in the Argentine sovereign bonds. This decision had a dramatic impact on Argentina’s sovereign debt restructurings (SDR) – indeed, it arguably led to Argentina’s second default in 13 years on 30 July 2014. On the same day that the petition for certiorari was rejected, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment on the issue of the relationship between discovery in aid of execution against the debtor state’s extraterritorial assets and the law of state immunity. In Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., judgment of 16 June 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s conclusion that the extraterritorial assets discovery against two non-party banks in aid of executing the judgments stemming from Argentina’s default of its external debt did not offend Argentina’s sovereign immunity. This comment addresses this judgment on extraterritorial discovery which, although less headline grabbing than the decisions on the pari passu clause, also marks a victory for holdout creditors. It first provides a summary of the background of the case and the judgment, and then considers its implications on the future SDR. Regarding the implications of the case on the future SDR, this comment also describes the developments of law concerning the relationship between the law on foreign investment and SDR (in investment arbitration) and the relationship between investment arbitration awards and sovereign immunity (in US courts). First, it examines the recent decisions in ICSID arbitration concerning the disputes arising from the Argentina’s default and subsequent SDR (Abaclat v. Argentina (decision on jurisdiction and admissibility of 4 August 2011) and Ambiente v. Argentina (decision on jurisdiction and admissibility of 8 February 2013)). In essence, these decisions opened the door to investment treaty arbitration for holdout creditors of international sovereign bonds, for the first time in the history of investment arbitration. It then describes the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Blue Ridge v. Argentina (judgment of 19 August 2013) in which the court concluded that the defendant state in an ICSID arbitration was considered to have waived its jurisdictional immunity under the Foreign State Immunity Act of 1976 (FSIA). It argues that the combination of: (a) Argentina v. NML, (b) Blue Ridge v. Argentina, and (c) the openness of ICSID arbitration to disputes arising from SDR will have potentially serious consequences for future SDR.
References
Barraud, C. (2009). How to prevent and solve a classic sovereign debt crisis: Beyond the debate CAC vs. SRDM. Retrieved from http://www.boeckler.de/pdf/v_2009_10_30_barraud.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Bjorklund, A. K. (2009). State immunity and the enforcement of investor-state arbitral awards. In Binder, C., Kriebaum, U., Reinisch, A., & Wittich, S. (Eds.), International investment law for the 21st century (p. 302). Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571345.003.0017Search in Google Scholar
Crawford, J. (1981, October). Execution of judgments and foreign sovereign immunity. American Journal of International Law, 75(4), 820–869.10.2307/2201355Search in Google Scholar
Buenos Aires Herald. (2014). Fitch downgrades Argentina to “restricted default”. Retrieved 2014, 31 July, from http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/165973/fitch-downgrades-argentina-to-%E2%80%98restricted-default%E2%80%99Search in Google Scholar
Crook, J. R. (2013, January). Contemporary practice of the United States relating to international law. American Journal of International Law, 107(1), 207–251.Search in Google Scholar
Council on Hemispheric Affairs. (2014). Argentina for sale: Implications of the US Supreme Court decision on Argentina (20 June 2014). Retrieved from http://www.coha.org/argentina-for-sale-implications-of-the-u-s-supreme-court-decision-on-argentina/Search in Google Scholar
Cross, K. H. (2014, July). The extraterritorial reach of sovereign debt enforcement. Society of International Economic Law. Working Paper No. 2014/28. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2474139Search in Google Scholar
Das, U. S., Papaioannou, M. G., & Trebesch, C. (2012). Sovereign Debt Restructurings 1950.2010: Concepts, Literature Survey, and Stylized Facts. IMF Working Paper, Monetary and Capital Markets Department, WP/12/203 (2012).Search in Google Scholar
Delaume, G. R. (1994, April). The foreign sovereign immunities act and public debt litigation: Some fifteen years later. American Journal of International Law, 88(2), 257–279.10.2307/2204099Search in Google Scholar
Dobrovir, W. A. (1968). Gloss on the Tate letter’s restrictive theory of sovereign immunity. Virginia Law Review, 1(54), 1–19.10.2307/1071884Search in Google Scholar
Fouret, J. (2012). Stay(ing) on track of falling off the edge: The absence of legal security in the Ad Hoc Committees’ decisions under Article 52(5) of the ICSID convention. ICSID Review, 27(2), 303–334.10.1093/icsidreview/sis016Search in Google Scholar
Fox, H. (2010). The law of state immunity (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gallagher, K. P. (2011). The new vulture culture: Sovereign debt restructuring and trade and investment treaties. The IDEA’s Working Paper (2011). Retrieved from http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/publications/GallagherSovereignDebt.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Galvis, S. J., & Saad, A. L. (2003–2004). Collective action clauses: Recent progress and challenges ahead. Georgetown Journal of International Law, 35, 713–729.Search in Google Scholar
Gamal MoursiBadr (1984). State immunity: An analytical and prognostic view. Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff.Search in Google Scholar
Gugiatti, M., & Richards, A. (2003–2004). The use of collective action clauses in New York law bonds of sovereign borrowers. Georgetown Journal of International Law, 35, 815–835.10.2139/ssrn.443840Search in Google Scholar
Haller, A. (2014, July 17). Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd. (No. 12–842): The Supreme Court (and this Website) got it right. Retrieved from http://fsialaw.com/2014/06/17/republic-of-argentina-v-nml-capital-ltd-no-12-842-the-supreme-court-and-this-website-got-it-right/Search in Google Scholar
Hornbeck, J. F. (2013), Argentina’s Defaulted sovereign debt: Dealing with the “holdouts”’. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 2013, February 6, from http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41029.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
IMF. (2002). The design and effectiveness of collective action clauses. Prepared by the Legal Department, June 6, 2002, Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/np/psi/2002/eng/060602.htm10.5089/9781498328487.007Search in Google Scholar
Ishikawa, T. (2014). Collective action clauses in sovereign bond contracts and investment treaty arbitration – An approach to reconcile the irreconcilable. Accounting, Economics and Law: A Convivium, 4(2), 63–98.10.1515/ael-2013-0056Search in Google Scholar
James, S. (2012). Sovereign Pari Passu clauses: Don’t cry for Argentina – Yet. Retrieved from http://www.cliffordchance.com/briefings/2012/12/sovereign_pari_passuclausesdontcryfo.htmlSearch in Google Scholar
Kahale, I. I. I. G. (1982). Characterizing nationalizations for purposes of the foreign sovereign immunities act and the act of state doctrine. Fordham International Law Journal, 6(3), 391–420.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Y. (2002). Collective action clauses in international sovereign bonds. Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/np/leg/sem/2002/cdmfl/eng/liu.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Mola, L. (2012). Sovereign immunity, insolvent states and private bondholders: Recent national and international case law. The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 11, 525–554.10.1163/15718034-12341239Search in Google Scholar
Neve, B. (2013–2014). NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina: An alternative to the inadequate remedies under the foreign sovereign immunities Act. North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation, 39, 631–673.Search in Google Scholar
Ostrandar, J. (2004). The last bastion of sovereign immunity: A comparative look at immunity from execution of judgments. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 22, 541–582.Search in Google Scholar
Parra, A. R. (2007). The enforcement of ICSID arbitral awards. In 24th Joint Colloquium on International Arbitration, Paris, 16 November 2007. Retrieved from http://www.arbitration-icca.org/media/0/12144885278400/enforcement_of_icsid_awards.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Quarles, R. (2010). Herding cats: Collective action clauses in sovereign debt – The genesis of the project to change market practice in 2001 through 2003. Law & Contemporary Problems, 73(4), 29–38.Search in Google Scholar
Reed, L., Paulsson, J., & Blackaby, N. (2011). Guide to ICSID arbitration (2nd ed.). The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.Search in Google Scholar
Russo, C., & Porzecanski, K. (2014, July 31). Argentina declared in default by S&P as talks fail. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-30/argentina-defaults-according-to-s-p-as-debt-meetings-continue.htmlSearch in Google Scholar
Schumacher, J., Trebesch, C., & Enderlein, H. (2014, May). Sovereign defaults in court. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2189997Search in Google Scholar
Smith, J. (2014). Partial justice: The US Courts v. Argentina. Policy Research in Macroeconomics (7 July 2014). Retrieved from http://www.primeeconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Partial-Justice-the-US-Courts-v-Argentina1.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Schreuer, C. (2009). The ICSID convention: A commentary; A commentary on the convention on the settlement of investment disputes between states and nationals of other states (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511596896Search in Google Scholar
Swanson, S. R. (1999). Jurisdictional discovery under the foreign sovereign immunities Act. Emory International Law Review, 13, 445–491.Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, J. B. (2012). Grants and sovereign debt restructuring: Two key elements of a reform agenda for the international financial institutions. Testimony of John B. Taylor, Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs before the Joint Economic Committee, 14 February 2002, PO-1016. Retrieved from http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/po1016.aspxSearch in Google Scholar
United States. (1973). Draft legislation on the jurisdictional immunities of foreign states (26 January 1973). International Legal Materials, 12(1), 118–162.10.1017/S0020782900056187Search in Google Scholar
Weidemaier, M. C., & Gelpern, A. (2013). Injunctions in sovereign debt litigation. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1319Search in Google Scholar
Weidemaier, W. (2014). Sovereign immunity and sovereign debt. University of Illinois Law Review, 2014, 68–113.Search in Google Scholar
Yang, X. (2012). State immunity in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139016377Search in Google Scholar
Yianni, A. (1999, June). Resolution of sovereign financial crises. Bank of England. Financial Stability Review, 78–84.Search in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter
