Gesamtzahl der Seitenaufrufe

Sonntag, 25. August 2013

interessante Fragen zur Bindung von Drittparteien im pari passu Urteil des Court of Appeaks vs Argentinienen vom 23.8.2013

III. Alleged Injuries to Participants in the Exchange Bond Payment System

2 Argentina, BNY, Euro Bondholders, and ICE Canyon raise additional issues concerning
3 the amended injunctions and their effects on the international financial system through which
4 Argentina pays Exchange Bondholders. The arguments include that (1) the district court lacks
5 personal jurisdiction over payment system participants and therefore cannot bind them with the
6 amended injunctions, (2) the amended injunctions cannot apply extraterritorially, (3) payment
7 system participants are improperly bound because they were denied due process, and (4) the
8 amended injunctions’ application to financial system participants would violate the U.C.C.’s
9 protections for intermediary banks. None of these arguments, numerous as they are, has merit.11
10 First, BNY and Euro Bondholders argue that the district court erred by purporting to
11 enjoin payment system participants over which it lacks personal jurisdiction. But the district
12 court has issued injunctions against no one except Argentina. Every injunction issued by a
13 district court automatically forbids others—who are not directly enjoined but who act “in active
14 concert or participation” with an enjoined party—from assisting in a violation of the injunction.
15 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). In any event, the Supreme Court has expressed its expectation that,
16 when questions arise as to who is bound by an injunction though operation of Rule 65, district
17 courts will not “withhold a clarification in the light of a concrete situation.” Regal Knitwear Co.......

S 15

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen