ACP Master, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina

Nature of the document

The provided text is a November 2, 2021 letter from counsel for the Republic of Argentina to Judge Loretta A. Preska. It requests a discovery conference under the court’s individual practices and Local Civil Rule 37.2. The text does not contain a judicial opinion or an order resolving the request.

Background

The letter states that the plaintiffs are hedge funds seeking hundreds of millions of dollars based on allegations that Argentina acted in bad faith by denying payment under GDP-linked securities issued in 2005 and 2010. It says those securities had otherwise paid nearly $10 billion. The plaintiffs allegedly took the position that, apart from proof of ownership, nothing in their files was relevant or discoverable. Argentina says the plaintiffs refused to identify employees responsible for buying the securities and produced only incomplete account statements, publicly available documents, and certain communications with Argentina.

Discovery sought

Argentina asks the plaintiffs to answer interrogatories and produce documents concerning three broad subjects:

1. Acquisition and ownership. Argentina seeks information about the plaintiffs’ acquisition, financing, ownership, sale, and attempted assignment of the securities. The letter says this information relates to the elements of the plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract claim, as well as standing and whether the claims were timely. It also states that WASO Holding Corporation acknowledged purchasing most of its securities after filing suit and after the applicable limitations period had expired.

2. Reasons for acquisition. Argentina seeks information about financing and ownership structure to investigate its defense of champerty. The letter describes champerty as acquiring a claim with the purpose of bringing a lawsuit on it and cites New York Judiciary Law § 489. Argentina says it has pleaded this defense and is entitled to discovery about whether litigation was the plaintiffs’ principal reason for acquiring the securities.

3. Understanding of the securities’ terms. Argentina seeks documents and communications concerning the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the securities and Argentina’s payment obligations. The letter says this information is relevant to the plaintiffs’ claim that Argentina breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, which depends on the contract’s language and the parties’ conduct. It also says the information is relevant to Argentina’s defense of mutual mistake, meaning a shared, substantial, and material misunderstanding existing when the contract was made.

The letter specifically discusses a dispute over how the securities’ GDP growth-rate trigger should be calculated. Argentina says the plaintiffs advocate a variable 1.263 percent factor, while Argentina contends that the agreement called for a constant growth rate above 3 percent. Argentina also points to subpoenas that the plaintiffs served on financial institutions and Cleary Gottlieb seeking documents about drafting or issuing the securities.

Requested relief and disposition

Argentina asks Judge Preska either to hold a pre-motion discovery conference or to grant permission to file a motion compelling the plaintiffs to respond fully to the discovery requests. The provided text does not state that the court held the conference, granted permission, entered a discovery order, or otherwise ruled on the request. Because this document contains no ruling, it is classified as other.