Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Lydia Scheck and Dieter Scheck v. the Republic of Argentina

September 1, 2011



Plaintiffs Dieter Scheck and Lydia Scheck are two German citizens-a husband and wife-who have obtained six money judgments each against the Republic of Argentina in a German court, based on their ownership of defaulted Republic-issued German bonds. In this action, plaintiffs seek recognition and enforcement of these German judgments pursuant to Article 53 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.

Plaintiffs move for summary judgment. The Republic's only objection is that plaintiffs submit no proof as to awards of costs related to their German judgments.

The motion is granted.


Plaintiffs state that they have held bearer bonds since the 1990s issued by the Republic and governed by five offering circulars. Plaintiffs have obtained judgments in German courts based on their ownership of these German bonds.

The Republic waived its immunity from suit on these German bonds in the offering circulars. The relevant language is essentially the same in the varying offering circulars:

The Republic hereby irrevocably submits to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of any German court sitting in Frankfurt am Main and any Federal court sitting in the City of Buenos Aires as well as any appellate court of any thereof, in any suit, action or proceeding against it arising out of or relating to these Bonds. The Republic hereby irrevocably waives-to the fullest extent it may effectively do so-the defense of an inconvenient forum to the maintenance of such suit or action or such proceeding and any present or future objection to such suit, action or proceeding whether on the grounds of venue, residence or domicile. The Republic agrees that a final judgment in any such suit, action or proceeding in the courts mentioned above shall be conclusive and may be enforced in other jurisdictions by suit on the judgment or any other method provided by law.

To the extent that the Republic has or hereafter may acquire any immunity (sovereign or otherwise) from jurisdiction of any court or from any legal process (whether through service or notice, attachment prior to judgment, attachment in aid of execution, execution or otherwise), with respect to itself or its revenues, assets or properties, the Republic hereby irrevocably waives such immunity in respect of its obligations under the Bonds to the extent it is permitted to do so under applicable law.

See Offering Circulars for German Bonds issued at 7% interest due 2004, § 13; 8.5% interest due 2005, § 12; 9% interest due 2003, § 11; 10.25% interest due 2003, § 11; 10.5% interest due 2002, § 11.

Pursuant to the offering circulars, failure to make any payments of principal or interest for 30 days after the applicable payment date constitutes an event of default. A declaration by the Republic of a moratorium on the payment of principal or interest on its public external indebtedness is an event of default as well. The offering circulars also state that if either of these events occurs, "the holder of any Bond may . . . declare such Bond to be immediately due and payable together with accrued interest thereon."

On December 24, 2001, the Republic declared a moratorium on payments of principal and interest on the external debt of the Republic. The court refers to its previous opinions for a description of the circumstances of these defaults. Lightwater Corp. Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, No. 02 Civ. 3804, 2003 WL 1878420, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2003); Applestein v. Province of Buenos Aires, No. 02 Civ. 1773, 2003 WL 1990206, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2003). Plaintiffs notified the Republic of an event of default, demanding payment on their bonds, as described in the German court judgments.

German Court Proceedings*fn1

Plaintiffs brought nine civil proceedings in Germany which resulted in twelve judgments. The relevant German court proceedings began in 2003 and concluded in 2010.

The German judgments were rendered in a special form of civil law proceeding based on documentary evidence only. In this type of a proceeding, if the plaintiff is able to prove the facts its claim is based on by means of documentary evidence, an enforceable judgment will be issued in its favor. However, if the plaintiff succeeds, but the defendant objects to the claim that is brought against it, the court must render the judgment in the form of a conditional judgment. A conditional judgment may be challenged by the defendant in an appeal to the Higher Regional Court and in a subsequent proceeding in the District Court in which the defendant may present all evidence available to it. If the plaintiff is successful in this subsequent proceeding, a subsequent judgment is rendered, which declares the conditional judgment unconditional and transforms it into a regular final judgment. If the defendant is successful, the conditional judgment is reversed. A final judgment rendered by a subsequent proceeding can be appealed in the Federal Supreme Court. A conditional judgment becomes final, conclusive, and fully enforceable ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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