Ape Group SPA v. Republic of Argentina

S.D. New York

Ape Group SPA v. Republic of Argentina

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided February 12, 2024·No. 1:20-cv-10409·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AURELIUS CAPITAL MASTER, LTD., Plaintiff, -against- No. 19 CV 351 (LAP) THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. NOVORIVER S.A., Plaintiff, -against- No. 19 CV 9786 (LAP)

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC, Defendant. ACP MASTER, LTD., Plaintiff, -against- No. 19 CV 10109 (LAP) THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. 683 CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP, Plaintiff, -against- No. 19 CV 10131 (LAP) THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. ADONA LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, -against- No. 19 CV 11338 (LAP) 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 Plaintiffs’ letter motion [dkt. no. 143]1 seeking to file under seal certain materials relating to Plaintiffs’ summary judgment filings. Although such materials carry a “strong presumption of [public] access,” sealing is justified when a district court renders “specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values,” and the district court issues a sealing order “narrowly tailored to achieve that aim.” See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).

1 Docket entry numbers refer to the lead case, Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd., v. The Republic of Argentina, Case No. 19-cv-351. The Court finds that the reasons for sealing proffered by Plaintiffs in their letter motion, that is, that the documents contain commercially sensitive information, confidential information subject to the parties’ Protective Order, investment strategies and holdings not at issue in this case, and the like, outweigh any presumption of public access in the unsealing of such materials. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request to file certain materials under seal [dkt. no. 143] is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the open letter motions at dkt. no. 143 in Civil Case Number 19-cv-351, dkt. no. 118 in Civil Case Number 19-cv-9786, dkt. no. 125 in Civil Case Number 19-cv-10109, dkt. no. 126 in Civil Case Number 19-cv-10131, dkt. no. 131 in Civil Case Number 19-cv-11338, and dkt. no. 64 in Civil Case Number 20-cv-10409,

SO ORDERED. Dated: February 12, 2024 New York, New York waittta Yhewhg 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, -against- No. 19 CV 351 (LAP) THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. NOVORIVER S.A., Plaintiff, -against- No. 19 CV 9786 (LAP)

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC, Defendant. ACP MASTER, LTD., Plaintiff, -against- No. 19 CV 10109 (LAP) THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. 683 CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP, Plaintiff, -against- No. 19 CV 10131 (LAP) THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant. ADONA LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, -against- No. 19 CV 11338 (LAP) 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 Plaintiffs’ letter motion [dkt. no. 143]1 seeking to file under seal certain materials relating to Plaintiffs’ summary judgment filings. Although such materials carry a “strong presumption of [public] access,” sealing is justified when a district court renders “specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values,” and the district court issues a sealing order “narrowly tailored to achieve that aim.” See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).

1 Docket entry numbers refer to the lead case, Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd., v. The Republic of Argentina, Case No. 19-cv-351. The Court finds that the reasons for sealing proffered by Plaintiffs in their letter motion, that is, that the documents contain commercially sensitive information, confidential information subject to the parties’ Protective Order, investment strategies and holdings not at issue in this case, and the like, outweigh any presumption of public access in the unsealing of such materials. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request to file certain materials under seal [dkt. no. 143] is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the open letter motions at dkt. no. 143 in Civil Case Number 19-cv-351, dkt. no. 118 in Civil Case Number 19-cv-9786, dkt. no. 125 in Civil Case Number 19-cv-10109, dkt. no. 126 in Civil Case Number 19-cv-10131, dkt. no. 131 in Civil Case Number 19-cv-11338, and dkt. no. 64 in Civil Case Number 20-cv-10409,

SO ORDERED. Dated: February 12, 2024 New York, New York waittta Yhewhg LORETTA A. PRESKA ———— Senior United States District Judge

Ape Group SPA v. Republic of Argentina, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Ape Group SPA v. Republic of Argentina (Ape Group SPA v. Republic of Argentina) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related