MENU

Commercial Litigation

Argentina Bond Case Decided by U.S. Supreme Court - Podcast

International & National Security Law and Litigation Practice Groups Podcast
Michael D. Ramsey, Thomas H. Lee June 19, 2014

Central Bank of ArgentinaThe Supreme Court decided a complex but important case on June 16, 2014, Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Limited. The Republic of Argentina issued bonds to American investors, correspondingly waiving its sovereign immunity and consenting to jurisdiction in New York State. Argentina subsequently defaulted on those bonds. Plaintiff bondholder NML did not participate in a renegotiation of the bonds and sued to prevent Argentina from paying other bondholders that agreed to settle their claims.

At issue were whether NML Capital could bring suit against Argentina under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the extent of discovery to which plaintiffs are entitled. In court, the United States sided with Argentina. Argentina asserted it should be able to block third party disclosure of its assets, since some assets might be sensitive diplomatic or military assets. The Supreme Court ruled, 7-1, that Argentina is subject to the FSIA, and thus liable to suit pursuant to it, and that American banks can be ordered to disclose Argentina’s assets in the U.S. as part of discovery in the default lawsuit. This decision has potential ramifications for government debt restructuring around the world. Our experts examined these and other possible effects of the decision.

  • Prof. Michael D. Ramsey, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law, Director, International & Comparative Law Programs, University of San Diego School of Law
  • Prof. Thomas H. Lee, Leitner Family Professor of International Law, Director Graduate and International Studies, Fordham University School of Law

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 5-12-14 featuring David Olson
David S. Olson May 12, 2014

David Olson On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. The question in this case was how to appropriately determine a party's standing to bring a cause of action for false advertising under the Lanham Act.

In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court held that Static Control adequately pleaded the elements of a Lanham Act cause of action for false advertising. The decision of the Sixth Circuit was affirmed.

To discuss the case, we have Professor David Olson, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Boston College Law School.

Oral Arguments in the Contraceptive Mandate Case: Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. - Podcast

Religious Liberties Practice Group Podcast
Robert A. Destro, Adèle Keim March 26, 2014

Hobby Lobby

On March 25, 2014, the contraceptive mandate case was argued in the U.S. Supreme Court. Hobby Lobby Stores’ owners have no moral or other objection to the use of 16 of 20 contraceptives required by the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but cite their deeply held religious beliefs in objecting to providing or paying for four others they see as possibly life-threatening. How will the Supreme Court rule? Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), allow Hobby Lobby a way around the ACA ‘s contraceptive mandate? Our experts reviewed the oral arguments and took questions from the audience in this Courthouse Steps Teleforum.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Robert A. Destro, Professor of Law, and Director, Interdisciplinary Program in Law & Religion, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
  • Adele Keim, Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

[Listen now!]