Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LIGHTWATER CORPORATION LIMITED v. REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA

United States District Court, Southern District of New York


May 16, 2003

LIGHTWATER CORPORATION LIMITED, PLAINTIFF, AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, DEFENDANT. OLD CASTLE HOLDINGS, LTD., PLAINTIFF, AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, DEFENDANT. MACROTECNIC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF, AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas P. Griesa, United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM

The court has received proposed judgments in the three cases, as requested in the memorandum of May 7.

The form used in the Lightwater and Old Castle judgments is appropriate and clear, and the same form should be used in Macrotenic. There is a word change in the first paragraph which should be made. "Directed" should be changed to "directing."

The interest figures should be broken down to show interest due and unpaid under the bonds. The total unpaid obligation under the bonds would then be the principal plus that interest. There should then be a separate figure for pre-judgment interest, calculated from the time or times when the obligations under the bonds were in default. The pre-judgment interest should run to the date when the new amended judgments are noticed for settlement.

The Republic asks that the judgments should include a statement that execution is subject to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The court believes that the judgments should not incorporate any provisions about execution. By the same token, the judgments should not have any provisions that the plaintiff "shall have execution therefor." Such a provision is not appropriate under the present circumstances. Enforcement of the judgments will be governed by the applicable law and any court orders that are entered pursuant to law.

There should be no reference in the judgments to the issue of stay of proceedings. That is something which will be dealt with in applications and orders outside of the judgments. However, the court is, in this order, directing that execution on the judgments is further stayed until May 30, 2003. This will give time for the final judgments to be signed. It will further give time for the Republic to make any application for an additional stay.

The court declines to grant the Republic's request to require a surrender of the bonds as a condition of obtaining the judgments. There is too much uncertainty about collection on these judgments to make it appropriate to demand such a surrender. For instance, the Republic may apply for an additional stay, and the court has obviously not decided what to do with such an application. However, the court is cognizant of the problems which would arise if the bonds in question were to be sold. Accordingly, the court issues the following direction. Until further notice from the court, plaintiffs must refrain from selling or otherwise transferring the bonds involved in these actions, without advising the court in advance and obtaining permission of the court.

20030516

© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.