683 Capital Partners, LP v. The Republic of Argentina

Nature of the Document

The provided text is a letter from counsel for the Republic of Argentina requesting a discovery conference or permission to file a motion to compel. It is not a judicial opinion or order, and it does not state that the court granted or denied any request.

There is a caption mismatch: the letter is addressed to Judge Loretta A. Preska and identifies the matter as Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd., et al. v. The Republic of Argentina, with several docket numbers. The supplied case name is 683 Capital Partners, LP v. The Republic of Argentina, but no docket number for that case appears in the provided materials.

Discovery Requested

Argentina says the plaintiffs refused to provide information beyond publicly available documents, certain communications with Argentina, and incomplete account statements. According to the letter, the plaintiffs also refused to identify employees responsible for buying the securities. Argentina asks for responses to interrogatories and document requests concerning:

- The plaintiffs’ acquisition, ownership, financing, sale, and attempted assignment of the GDP-linked securities. - The plaintiffs’ reasons for acquiring the securities, including financing and ownership-structure information. - The plaintiffs’ and third parties’ analyses and understanding of the securities’ terms and Argentina’s payment obligations.

Arguments for Relevance

Argentina argues that acquisition and ownership information bears on the plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract claims, including whether a contract was formed, whether the plaintiffs performed, whether Argentina failed to perform, and the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages. It also says that ownership information is relevant to standing and whether the claims were filed within the applicable limitations period. The letter states that WASO Holding Corporation admitted through an amended complaint that it purchased most of its securities after filing suit and after the limitations period had expired.

Argentina also says the requested information is relevant to its defense under New York’s champerty statute. Champerty generally concerns acquiring a claim with the intent and purpose of bringing a lawsuit on it. Argentina says it is entitled to discovery concerning whether bringing these claims was the plaintiffs’ principal purpose in acquiring the securities.

Finally, Argentina argues that the plaintiffs’ understanding of the securities’ terms is relevant to the claim that Argentina breached the implied obligation to act in good faith and fairly. It also invokes mutual mistake, a defense concerning a shared, material misunderstanding existing when a contract was formed. The letter discusses competing understandings of the GDP growth-rate trigger and notes that the plaintiffs subpoenaed financial institutions and a law firm for materials concerning the securities’ drafting and issuance.

Action Reflected in the Materials

The letter says the plaintiffs had received thousands of pages from Argentina and would receive more. It asks for a pre-motion discovery conference or leave to file a motion to compel. The materials state only that counsel were to address the issues at a conference scheduled for November 9, 2021. They do not provide a subsequent court order, disposition, or ruling by Judge Loretta A. Preska.