683 Capital Partners, LP v. The Republic of Argentina

S.D. New York

683 Capital Partners, LP v. The Republic of Argentina

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 28, 2023·No. 1:19-cv-10131·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AURELIUS CAPITAL MASTER, LTD., Plaintiff, No. 19 CV 351 (LAP) -against- THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. NOVORIVER S.A., Plaintiff, No. 19 CV 9786 (LAP) -against- ARGENTINE REPUBLIC, Defendant. ACP MASTER, LTD., Plaintiff, -against- No. 19 CV 10109 (LAP) THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. 683 CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP, Plaintiff, No. 19 CV 10131 (LAP) -against- THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. ADONA LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, No. 19 CV 11338 (LAP) -against- THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. APE GROUP SPA, et al., Plaintiffs, No. 20 CV 10409 (LAP) -against- ORDER THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant.

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge: The Court is in receipt of the parties’ letters regarding the unsealing of certain materials filed under seal in the Republic’s summary judgment filings. [See dkt. nos. 149, 159.]1 Although such materials carry a “strong presumption of [public] access,” continued sealing is justified when a district court renders “specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values” and issues a sealing order “narrowly tailored to achieve that aim.” See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 2019).

1 References contained herein use the docket entry numbers in Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd., v. The Republic of Argentina, Case No. 19-cv-350 (LAP). The Court finds that the reasons for continued sealing proffered by Plaintiffs in their letter [dkt. no. 159], that is, that the documents contain commercially sensitive information, financial records of non-public entities, confidential ownership structures and original purchasing entities not at issue in this case, personal contact information, and the like, outweigh any presumption of public access in the unsealing of such materials. Accordingly, the Republic may file documents on the public docket that are redacted in accordance with Plaintiffs’ letter and the Protective Order [dkt. no. 50].

SO ORDERED. Dated: November 28, 2023 New York, New York

LORETTA A. PRESKA ———— Senior United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AURELIUS CAPITAL MASTER, LTD., Plaintiff, No. 19 CV 351 (LAP) -against- THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. NOVORIVER S.A., Plaintiff, No. 19 CV 9786 (LAP) -against- ARGENTINE REPUBLIC, Defendant. ACP MASTER, LTD., Plaintiff, -against- No. 19 CV 10109 (LAP) THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. 683 CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP, Plaintiff, No. 19 CV 10131 (LAP) -against- THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. ADONA LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, No. 19 CV 11338 (LAP) -against- THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. APE GROUP SPA, et al., Plaintiffs, No. 20 CV 10409 (LAP) -against- ORDER THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant.

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge: The Court is in receipt of the parties’ letters regarding the unsealing of certain materials filed under seal in the Republic’s summary judgment filings. [See dkt. nos. 149, 159.]1 Although such materials carry a “strong presumption of [public] access,” continued sealing is justified when a district court renders “specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values” and issues a sealing order “narrowly tailored to achieve that aim.” See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 2019).

1 References contained herein use the docket entry numbers in Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd., v. The Republic of Argentina, Case No. 19-cv-350 (LAP). The Court finds that the reasons for continued sealing proffered by Plaintiffs in their letter [dkt. no. 159], that is, that the documents contain commercially sensitive information, financial records of non-public entities, confidential ownership structures and original purchasing entities not at issue in this case, personal contact information, and the like, outweigh any presumption of public access in the unsealing of such materials. Accordingly, the Republic may file documents on the public docket that are redacted in accordance with Plaintiffs’ letter and the Protective Order [dkt. no. 50].

SO ORDERED. Dated: November 28, 2023 New York, New York

LORETTA A. PRESKA ———— Senior United States District Judge

683 Capital Partners, LP v. The Republic of Argentina, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

683 Capital Partners, LP v. The Republic of Argentina (683 Capital Partners, LP v. The Republic of Argentina) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related