NML Capital, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina, No. 1:2008cv06978 - Document 486 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION: The significant point is that counsel for the Republic does not deny the factual allegations in plaintiffs' September 11, 2013 letter. In fact, there is a new problem that goes beyond the circumstances known as of the time of the March 5, 2012 order. Plaintiffs are surely within their rights to seek a remedy for this new problem. They do so in appropriate provisions in the proposed order. The court will sign the proposed order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 10/03/2013) (ama)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 .\ \~'~OClJ~\Lr~~r'\l~. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK . E':.£CfRON1C!\11X FILED \ DOC #: _ _ _..--._ __ _____________________________________________ x "1 'DATE FILED: 0 15}~101~ ,'-~ 1\ --"'/.-~ ~~.~- ~ f.......-........._ ... NML CAPITAL, LTD., Plaintiff, 08 Civ. 6978 (TPG) 09 Civ. 1707 (TPG) 09 Civ. 1708 (TPG) - against- THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. ---------------------------------------------x AURELIUS CAPITAL MASTER, LTD. and ACP MASTER, LTD., 09 Civ. 8757 (TPG) 09 Civ. 10620 (TPG) Plaintiffs, - against- THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. ---------------------------------------------x AURELIUS OPPORTUNITIES FUND II, LLC and AURELIUS CAPITAL MASTER, LTD., Plaintiffs, 10 10 10 10 Civ. Civ. Civ. Civ. 1602 3507 3970 8339 (TPG) (TPG) (TPG) (TPG) - againstTHE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, (captions continued on next page) Defendant. ---------------------------------------------x 1 ...... ¢.-,,- .. .,' ---------------------------------------------x BLUE ANGEL CAPITAL I LLC, 10 Civ. 4101 (TPG) 10 Civ. 4782 (TPG) Plaintiff, - against- THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. ---------------------------------------------x OLIFANT FUND, LTD., 10 Civ. 9587 (TPG) Plaintiff, - against- THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. ---------------------------------------------x PABLO ALBERTO VARELA, et at, Plaintiffs, 10 Civ. 5338 (TPG) - against- THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. ---------------------------x 2 OPINION On September 11, 2013, counsel for NML Capital, Ltd. and certain other plaintiffs wrote to the court with factual allegations, which counsel asserted would violate a previous order of this court dated March 5, 2012. Plaintiffs submitted a proposed order designed to remedy the problems described in the September 11, 2013 letter. Counsel for the Republic of Argentina (the "Republic") submitted a brief letter to the court dated September 19, 2013, objecting to plaintiffs' proposed order "to the extent it goes beyond the plain language of the March 5 order." The Republic's counsel concludes by stating that "plaintiffs provide no basis for the broader relief they now seek." The significant point is that counsel for the Republic does not deny the factual allegations in plaintiffs' September 11, 2013 letter. In fact, there is a new problem that goes beyond the circumstances known as of the time of the March 5, 2012 order. Plaintiffs are surely within their rights to seek a remedy for this new problem. They do so in appropriate provisions in the proposed order. The court will sign the proposed order. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York October 3, 2013 Thomas P. Griesa U. S. District Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
