Inversora v. Republic
Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U. et al. v. Argentine Republic et al.; Eton Park Capital Management L.P. et al. v. Argentine Republic et al.
- Loretta Preska
- 1:16-cv-08569
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
Petersen Energia Inversora v. Argentine Republic: Judge Preska denied Argentina’s motions concerning objections to post-judgment asset discovery.
The Argentine Republic must participate in the asset discovery process without relying on categorical objections that the discovery could not lead to executable assets. Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U. et al. and Eton Park Capital Management L.P. et al. may continue seeking information about Argentina’s assets, subject to later objections concerning executability, burden, and proportionality.
What happened
In Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U. et al. v. Argentine Republic et al. and Eton Park Capital Management L.P. et al. v. Argentine Republic et al., Argentina asked the court to clarify or reconsider how it could object to discovery that might not lead to assets available to satisfy the judgments. The plaintiffs opposed the request.
The court explained that, at this stage, the parties must first identify Argentina’s assets, including assets in Argentina and elsewhere. Argentina may not categorically object by simply asserting that discovery cannot lead to assets available for execution. After a particular asset is identified, Argentina may present evidence that discovery about it could not possibly lead to an executable asset. Argentina may also continue to raise objections based on burden or proportionality.
Judge Loretta A. Preska denied both Argentina’s motion for clarification and its motion for reconsideration. She also directed the clerk to close specified docket entries in both related cases.
The detailed version
- Inversora v. Republic · No. 1:16-cv-08569
- Loretta Preska
- Sept. 2, 2025
Background
The Argentine Republic requested a pre-motion conference concerning an anticipated motion for clarification or, alternatively, reconsideration. The dispute concerned whether Argentina could make a non-conclusory objection to categories of post-judgment discovery that “could not possibly lead to executable assets.” The court treated Argentina’s letters as motions for clarification and reconsideration, and treated the plaintiffs’ response as an opposition.
The opinion states that the court had addressed this issue at four earlier conferences. The court had required information about certain financial accounts and had rejected objections based only on the assertion that the information could not lead to assets available for execution. The plaintiffs were seeking information about assets in Argentina and assets outside Argentina while determining what property Argentina had and where it was located. The opinion also states that the unpaid judgment was approximately $16 billion.
Motion for Clarification
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., which held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not prevent post-judgment discovery concerning a foreign sovereign’s assets outside the sovereign’s territory. The court explained that, although discovery should generally relate to whether assets may be attached or executed upon, the plaintiffs did not yet know what assets existed or where they were located.
The court held that Argentina could not categorically object to discovery at this stage by asserting that the information could not possibly lead to executable assets. Information about potentially immune assets could lead to the identification of assets that were not immune. The court stated that the process would be to identify an asset first and then determine whether it could be executed upon.
The court also stated that, after a particular asset was identified, Argentina could provide non-conclusory evidence that discovery about that asset could not possibly lead to an executable asset. Argentina could continue to raise objections based on proportionality or burden at any time. The motion for clarification was DENIED.
Motion for Reconsideration
Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally reserved for circumstances such as an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or manifest injustice. The court stated that reconsideration is not a vehicle for relitigating an issue already decided.
The court concluded that it had already considered the Supreme Court’s decision and that Argentina’s arguments were an attempt to take a “second bite of the apple.” The motion for reconsideration was DENIED.
Disposition
The court concluded that the Motions were DENIED. The clerk was directed to close docket numbers 768 and 783 in No. 15 Civ. 02739 and docket numbers 684 and 697 in No. 16 Civ. 08569. The order addressed discovery and reconsideration issues rather than deciding the underlying legal merits of the plaintiffs’ judgments.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.