Euclides Bartolome Bugliotti, et al. v. Republic of Argentina

Argentine holders of defaulted Argentine bonds, in suing to enforce their bonds in federal court in New York, invoked the sovereign issuer’s normal waiver of immunity and consent to jurisdiction contained in its Fiscal Agency Agreement (FAA) used in issuing the bonds. The holders’ bonds had been placed in an Argentine trust. Their original enforcement action was dismissed for lack of standing under an Argentine statute requiring judicial approval for actions brought by trust beneficiaries instead of their trustee. The holders immediately obtained judicial approval and sued again. By that time, the limitation period on most of their bond claims had run. The court of appeals held that New York’s “saving” statute did not extend limitations for these holders on the ground that, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), the holders’ lack of standing retroactively voided their invocation, in their original complaint, of the jurisdictional consent and waivers contained in the FAA, meaning jurisdiction had never existed.

1. Whether a plaintiff bondholder’s later-cured lack of standing under foreign trust law may retroactively negate a foreign sovereign’s contractual waiver of immunity and consent to jurisdiction under the FSIA, thereby extinguishing claims that were timely filed and continuously litigated under New York law?

2. Whether a federal court of appeals may resolve an outcome-determinative and unsettled question concerning the scope of New York’s remedial limitation saving statute by applying a novel FSIA-based jurisdictional theory without first obtaining guidance from New York’s highest court through its available certification procedure?