Opinion ID: 2832150
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: This Case Upon Remand

Text: On remand, plaintiffs filed the TAC—the operative complaint for purposes of this appeal.25 Pursuant to our ruling in BCRA II, funds held in BCRA’s accounts with the FRBNY are immune from attachment. Accordingly, the TAC is framed more broadly—the 22 See BCRA II, 652 F.3d at 186‐87. 23 Id. at 187–88. 24 Id. at 196 n.24. 25 See J.A. at 3026–83 (filed August 31, 2012). 12 declaratory judgment it seeks would establish: (1) that BCRA is the alter ego of Argentina; and (2) that BCRA is thus liable for any and all of Argentina’s debts.26 Plaintiffs’ stated purpose for seeking this judgment is to enable them to attach any asset held by BCRA anywhere in the world in satisfaction of their judgments against Argentina.27 This option was arguably left open by BCRA II, which foreclosed the possibility of attaching assets deposited in BCRA’s own accounts in the United States, but did not otherwise address plaintiffs’ ability to reach BCRA assets elsewhere. In November 2012, Argentina and BCRA moved to dismiss the TAC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim. Oral argument on this motion was held at a conference of the District Court on September 25, 2013. Plaintiffs argued that BCRA had waived its sovereign immunity on two grounds. First, plaintiffs asserted a theory of implied waiver—that is, because BCRA is the alter ego of Argentina, Argentina’s express waiver of immunity in the FAA should be imputed to BCRA.28 Second, plaintiffs asserted that BCRA waived its 26 J.A. at 3027 (TAC ¶ 1). 27 See Special App. (“SPA”) at 4 (9/25/13 Tr. 3:21‐23) (“We would like to be able to have a judgment that holds BCRA liable for the judgments entered against Argentina that we may enforce as a judgment if we find assets anywhere.”); id. at 10‐13 (9/25/13 Tr. 9:10‐12:15) (arguing that plaintiffs could take the declaratory judgment to California, Switzerland, or Germany and use it to attach BCRA’s assets held in those jurisdictions). 28 See id. at 27‐28 (9/25/13 Tr. 26:24‐27:1). 13 immunity by engaging in “commercial activity” in New York through its FRBNY account.29 In denying the motion to dismiss, the District Court explicitly adopted plaintiffs’ arguments for jurisdiction. In its bench order, the District Court stated: What I’m going to do this afternoon is to deny the motions to dismiss the [TAC]. I believe there is jurisdiction in the way [plaintiffs’ counsel] Mr. Cohen describes jurisdiction which makes it appropriate to entertain the action; and considering the provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, I believe that there is an implied waiver here and I believe there’s commercial activity so that the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(1) and (a)(2) are applicable. This really is, denying a motion to dismiss, exactly what would emerge from a litigation that has problems. The plaintiffs’ position has problems, as I’ve indicated. But I think those problems do not require the dismissal of the action. And I want to repeat something which I’m sure I’ve said maybe more than once this afternoon; and that is, we don’t have a 29 See id. at 29‐31 (9/25/13 Tr. 28:1‐30:2). 14 republic which is acting in a normal way as far as its debts. We don’t have a situation [where] there is a completely regular dealing between the [R]epublic and BCRA the way that I’m sure would exist with the Bank of England or the Central Bank of Germany or France or certainly with the Federal Reserve Bank. We don’t have that. We have irregularities. The reason that I believe the action should be held open is I think there is a very legitimate claim by the plaintiffs here that for certain purposes BCRA is the alter ego of the [R]epublic. In the papers before me, the plaintiffs have made a very powerful case of that, and I so held in my earlier decision, and that holding was not what was disturbed by the Court of Appeals. So, there’s a very good case of alter ego. I believe that the Court should entertain the idea that it would be desirable to have this Court with its experience in this case and its background in this case make some kind of formal ruling of alter ego which could be legitimately used in a proceeding in another state or a foreign country so that the plaintiffs do not have to go to the other state or the foreign country and start in again, once again, and maybe more than 15 once again with this presentation about alter ego. The motion to dismiss the action is denied.30 This appeal followed.31