Altana Credit Opportunities Fund SPC v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-08402
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Altana Credit Opportunities Fund SPC v. Venezuela, Judge Torres granted plaintiffs’ request to pursue enforcement after a reasonable waiting period.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs’ efforts to enforce the original money judgment against Venezuela under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. It does not make the same finding for the later amended judgment awarding attorneys’ fees and costs.
What happened
Altana Credit Opportunities Fund SPC v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela involved unpaid bond payments. Venezuela did not appear, and the court entered a default judgment requiring it to pay $589,413,443.82, excluding attorneys’ fees and costs. Five months later, plaintiffs asked the court to find that enough time had passed before enforcing the judgment.
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act requires a court to determine that a reasonable period has passed before certain property of a foreign state’s agency or instrumentality in the United States can be attached or used to satisfy a judgment. The court considered the five-month period and noted that other courts had found shorter periods reasonable.
Judge Analisa Torres granted plaintiffs’ motion. The ruling concerned the original judgment, not the later amended judgment awarding $394,080.63 in attorneys’ fees and costs; the court declined to find that a reasonable period had passed for that amended judgment because less than one month had elapsed and plaintiffs had not asked for that ruling.
The detailed version
- Altana Credit Opportunities Fund SPC v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela · No. 1:20-cv-08402
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 7, 2023
Background
Plaintiffs sued Venezuela for breach of contract, alleging that Venezuela failed to make required payments on a series of bonds. Plaintiffs amended their complaint six times to add unpaid interest and principal payments. Venezuela failed to appear, and the court entered a default judgment on July 19, 2023, requiring Venezuela to pay $589,413,443.82, excluding attorneys’ fees and costs. The opinion states that Venezuela had not made any payments on that judgment.
The court later amended the default judgment on November 16, 2023, to award plaintiffs $394,080.63 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The opinion states that plaintiffs did not move for a finding that a reasonable period had elapsed as to that amended judgment.
Plaintiffs’ Motion
Plaintiffs moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c) for an order finding that a “reasonable period of time” had passed since entry of the original judgment. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides that certain property of a foreign state’s agency or instrumentality in the United States cannot be attached or used to execute a judgment until the court has ordered attachment and execution after determining that a reasonable period has elapsed and any required notice has been given.
The statute does not define “reasonable time.” The court explained that relevant considerations can include procedures or legislation needed for a foreign state to pay a judgment, representations that the state is taking steps to satisfy the judgment, actual steps toward payment, and evidence that the state may remove assets to frustrate enforcement. The court also noted decisions finding periods shorter than five months reasonable, including periods of three months, six weeks, and two months. Other decisions had found two- and five-month periods reasonable when enforcing judgments against Venezuela.
Ruling
Judge Torres granted plaintiffs’ motion. Five months had passed since entry of the original judgment, and the court found that period comparable to the seven-month period it had previously found reasonable in a related case involving Venezuela. The court stated that it saw no reason to depart from its earlier reasoning.
The court did not find that a reasonable period had elapsed since entry of the amended judgment for attorneys’ fees and costs. It explained that less than one month had passed since that amended judgment and that plaintiffs had not moved for such a finding. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 84.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.