Hickory Securities Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina

11-3317-cv(L)
Hickory Securities Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A
SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED
BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE
32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A
PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH
THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A
COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New
York, on the 14th day of August, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
RALPH K. WINTER,
CHESTER J. STRAUB,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
HICKORY SECURITIES LTD., CESAR RAUL 11-3317-cv (Lead)
CASTRO, SILVIA SEIJAS, HEATHER M. 11-3321-cv (Con)
MUNTON, THOMAS L. PICO ESTRADA, EMILIO 11-3323-cv (Con)
ROMANO, RUBEN WEISZMAN, ANIBAL CAMPO, 11-3324-cv (Con)
MARIA COPATI, RUBEN CHORNY, ELIZABETH 11-3329-cv (Con)
ANDREA AZZA, RODOLFO VOGELBAUM, CLAUDIA 11-3331-cv (Con)
FLORENCIA VALLS, EDUARDO PURICELLI, 11-3354-cv (Con)
Plaintiffs-Appellees, 11-3373-cv (Con)
-v.-
REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES: JENNIFER R. SCULLION (Charles S.
Sims, William H. Weisman, Jean
Clemente, on the brief), Proskauer
Rose LLP, New York, New York.
Michael Diaz, Jr., Carlos F.
Gonzalez, Albert Xiques, Marta
Colomar-Garcia, on the brief, Diaz
Reus & Targ, LLP, Miami, Florida.
Howard Sirota, on the brief, Belle
Harbor, New York.
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: CARMINE D. BOCCUZZI (Jonathan I.
Blackman, Christopher P. Moore, on
the brief), Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP, New York, New York.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Griesa, J.). UPON DUE
CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that
the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED in part and
VACATED in part and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
Defendant-appellant Republic of Argentina ("Argentina")
appeals from eight judgments entered July 22, 2011 by the
district court, granting aggregate class-wide relief to eight
classes of plaintiff-appellee owners of beneficial interests in
defaulted Argentine bonds.
We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying
facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on
appeal, which we reference only as necessary to explain our
decision.
In 2004, plaintiff class representatives, claiming to
own beneficial interests in eight series of defaulted Argentine
bonds, filed eight putative class actions and moved for class
certification. On August 5, 2005, the district court granted
class certification in each action. The classes consisted of
bondholders who purchased Argentine bonds prior to the filing of
the class action for each respective bond series and who held
such bonds continuously until entry of judgment by the district
court. On January 9, 2009, following motions for summary
judgment by the plaintiffs in each of the eight actions, the
-2-
district court entered judgments granting aggregate class-wide
relief to each of the plaintiff classes.
Argentina appealed, challenging class certification and
the award of aggregate relief. See Seijas v. Republic of
Argentina, 606 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2010) ("Seijas I"). It
contended, inter alia, that the aggregate amounts were improperly
based on estimates of the total amount each class might recover
without accounting for bondholders who might not have held bonds
continuously during the class period (i.e., they purchased bonds
in the secondary market after the start of the class periods in
2004) or who held bonds that had not yet matured or been
accelerated. It argued, therefore, that aggregate relief was
improper and individualized proof of damages was necessary.
Plaintiffs asserted that aggregate damages were proper and could
be accurately estimated based on, in part, expert analysis of
data found in public filings on each respective bond series.
They further argued that once such judgments were entered, class
members could present proof of continuous ownership during the
class period and apply for individual awards.
On May 27, 2010, we affirmed the district court's
certification of the classes, but vacated its judgments granting
aggregate class-wide relief. See Seijas I, 606 F.3d at 59. We
held that the district court erred in basing the judgments on
estimates of Argentina's liability that resulted in class-wide
awards that were "likely inflated." Id. at 58-59. Specifically,
we concluded that "[e]stimating gross damages for each of the
-3-
classes as a whole, without using appropriate procedures to
ensure that the damages awards roughly reflect the aggregate
amount owed to class members, enlarges plaintiffs' rights by
allowing them to encumber property to which they have no
colorable claim," thus violating the Rules Enabling Act, 28
U.S.C. § 2072(b). Seijas I, 606 F.3d at 58-59 (citing McLaughlin
v. Am. Tobacco Co., 522 F.3d 215, 231 (2d Cir. 2008), abrogated
on other grounds by Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S.
639 (2008)). We remanded so that the district court could
consider alternative approaches to calculating damages "that more
closely reflect the losses class members experienced." Seijas I,
606 F.3d at 59.
On remand, plaintiffs presented revised aggregate
damage awards that deducted for (1) bonds tendered in Argentina's
two debt exchange offers, (2) bonds held by parties who had opted
out of the class actions, and (3) bonds held by parties pursuing
relief through other legal proceedings. These awards did not
account for bonds purchased in the secondary market after the
start of the class periods in 2004. Plaintiffs relied on the
testimony and declaration of their proposed expert, Professor
Michael Adler, to assert that the "overwhelming majority" of such
bonds had likely been sued on in separate proceedings or tendered
in one of Argentina's two debt exchange offers. (Adler Decl.
¶ 14). Throughout the proceedings below, Argentina continued to
object to the aggregate judgments.
-4-
At a hearing on May 9, 2011, the district court ruled,
over Argentina's objection, that bond series in three of the
eight actions that had not yet matured were deemed accelerated.
The district court further directed the parties to finalize their
damage calculations and present final revised aggregate judgments
to the court for approval. On July 19, 2011, the parties
stipulated to final revised aggregate judgment awards for each
plaintiff class "without waiver" of Argentina's objections to
"aggregate judgments and acceleration." (J.A. 3069-70, ECF No.
66). On July 22, 2011, the district court approved the
stipulation and entered the judgments accordingly.
On appeal, Argentina contends principally that the
district court (1) erred in granting aggregate class-wide relief
and (2) improperly deemed the three series of bonds accelerated.
We address each issue in turn.
1. Aggregate Judgments
Argentina argues that the district court improperly
awarded aggregate class-wide relief based on damage calculations
similar to those rejected in Seijas I and failed to account for
bonds purchased in the secondary market after the start of the
class periods in 2004.1
"'Although the amount of recoverable damages is a
question of fact, the measure of damages upon which the factual
1
To the extent that plaintiffs argue that Argentina
waived this point in entering into the July 22, 2011 stipulation,
we reject that argument. Argentina's position on aggregate
judgments necessarily incorporates objections to how damages are
calculated at an aggregate level.
-5-
computation is based is a question of law.'" Arch Ins. Co. v.
Precision Stone, Inc., 584 F.3d 33, 40 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting
Wolff & Munier, Inc. v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., 946 F.2d
1003, 1009 (2d Cir. 1991)). Accordingly, we review a district
court's applied method of damage calculation de novo and the
amount it determines to be recoverable under such a calculation
for clear error. See Bessemer Trust Co., N.A. v. Branin, 618
F.3d 76, 85 (2d Cir. 2010).
Aggregate class-wide damages are not per se unlawful.
See, e.g., Van Gemert v. Boeing Co., 553 F.2d 812, 815-16 (2d
Cir. 1977) ("Van Gemert II") (affirming, in part, award of
aggregate damages to plaintiff class of bondholders); Gerstle v.
Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 478 F.2d 1281, 1290, 1310 (2d Cir. 1973)
(modifying and affirming award of aggregate damages in securities
class action); see also In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale
Price Litig., 582 F.3d 156, 197-98 (1st Cir. 2009) ("The use of
aggregate damages calculations is well established in federal
court and implied by the very existence of the class action
mechanism itself."). As we stated in Seijas I, however, a
district court must "ensure that the damages awards roughly
reflect the aggregate amount owed to class members." 606 F.3d at
58-59. Although "damages need not usually be demonstrated with
precision," aggregate calculations that result in inflated damage
figures that do "not accurately reflect the number of plaintiffs
actually injured" and "bear[] little or no relationship to the
amount of economic harm actually caused by defendants" violate
-6-
the Rules Enabling Act. McLaughlin, 522 F.3d at 229, 231
(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
We have conducted an independent review of the record
in light of these principles and conclude that the district court
erred in granting aggregate class-wide judgments without
sufficiently accounting for non-continuous bondholders.
Here, aggregate class-wide relief would not be improper
so long as it accurately reflected the losses to the class and
adequately accounted for bondholders who are not class members.
Although we recognize the efforts of the district court and the
parties below to account for bonds tendered in the debt exchange
offers and held by opt-out parties and litigants in other
proceedings, the district court still has not adequately
addressed, much less resolved, the "[c]omplicated question[],"
Seijas I, 606 F.3d at 56, of the volume of bonds purchased in the
secondary market after 2004 that were not tendered or are
currently held by opt-outs or other litigants. In that regard,
there is little difference between the calculation of these
aggregate judgments and that of the judgments we previously
vacated in Seijas I.
Although the district court on remand initially
inquired as to the trading of bonds in the secondary market and
the possibility of expert analysis to determine the volume, it
did not direct a specific course of action with respect to
resolving the issue nor did it make any findings. Further, there
is nothing in the record to indicate that the district court
-7-
accepted -- or even considered -- Professor Adler's analysis and
conclusions in entering the aggregate judgments.
In addition, we are not convinced that Professor
Adler's testimony or declaration resolves the issue. His
conclusion that the "overwhelming majority" of bonds traded in
the secondary market post-2004 have been tendered or are held by
parties in other legal proceedings and that "very few . . . have
been held, passively, until today" (Adler Decl. ¶ 14) does not
appear to be based on any specific calculation. Indeed, the
plaintiffs did not ask Professor Adler to calculate such amounts.
Professor Adler also conceded that there was trading of bonds in
the secondary market throughout and after the 2010 debt exchange
offer but that he could not determine the volume of such trading
or identify the bondholders involved.
Accordingly, on remand, the district court shall
conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve these issues.
Specifically, it shall: (1) consider evidence with respect to the
volume of bonds purchased in the secondary market after the start
of the class periods that were not tendered in the debt exchange
offers or are currently held by opt-out parties or litigants in
other proceedings; (2) make findings as to a reasonably accurate,
non-speculative estimate of that volume based on the evidence
provided by the parties; (3) account for such volume in any
subsequent damage calculation such that an aggregate damage award
would "roughly reflect" the loss to each class, see Seijas I, 606
F.3d at 58-59; and (4) if no reasonably accurate, non-speculative
-8-
estimate can be made, then determine how to proceed with awarding
damages on an individual basis. Ultimately, if an aggregate
approach cannot produce a reasonable approximation of the actual
loss, the district court must adopt an individualized approach.2
2. Acceleration
Argentina argues that the district court erred in
declaring the series of bonds in three of the class actions --
Castro v. Republic of Argentina, No. 04 Civ. 506 (S.D.N.Y. filed
Jan. 22, 2004) ("Castro"), Hickory Securities Ltd. v. Republic of
Argentina, No. 04 Civ. 936 (S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 4, 2004)
("Hickory"), and Puricelli v. Republic of Argentina, No. 04 Civ.
2117 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 17, 2004) ("Puricelli") -- accelerated
in disregard of the acceleration requirements contained in the
Fiscal Agency Agreement (the "FAA") that governs the bonds.
Specifically, it contends, inter alia, that acceleration notices
sent by class counsel in 2004 and 2011 on behalf of the class
representatives and each entire class, respectively, were invalid
under the FAA. Argentina further posits that class counsel
cannot assert the contractual rights of individual absent class
members to accelerate their bonds. We conclude that Argentina's
arguments are without merit.
2
In addition, first entering aggregate judgments
inconsistent with the foregoing and then moving forward with an
individual claims process would not allay our concerns. See
McLaughlin, 522 F.3d at 231 ("Roughly estimating the gross
damages to the class as a whole and only subsequently allowing
for the processing of individual claims would inevitably alter
defendants' substantive right to pay damages reflective of their
actual liability.").
-9-
In affirming class certification in these actions, we
observed in Seijas I that "the representative parties must fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the class." 606 F.3d at
57. We have also previously recognized that a "certification
under Rule 23(c) makes the [c]lass the attorney's client for all
practical purposes." Van Gemert v. Boeing Co., 590 F.2d 433, 440
n.15 (2d Cir. 1978) ("Van Gemert IV"); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(g)(4) ("Class counsel must fairly and adequately represent the
interests of the class.").
Here, we find the acceleration notices sent by class
counsel on behalf of each class to be sufficient under the FAA
and, for "practical purposes," see Van Gemert IV, 590 F.2d at 440
n.15, in keeping with the appropriate duties of class counsel in
their representation of all class members in these actions.
In the event of non-payment of principal or interest or
a declared moratorium on payment of principal or interest, the
FAA provides that "each holder of Securities of such Series may
by such notice in writing declare the principal amount of
Securities or such Series held by it to be due and payable
immediately." (J.A. 3037-38, ECF No. 66). Class counsel's
notices sent in March 2011 were adequate in that regard.3
Argentina had defaulted on these bonds. It conceded before the
district court that it had no intention of resuming payments.
Class counsel, acting on behalf of the plaintiff classes, sent
3
As we find the March 2011 acceleration notices
sufficient, we do not address the parties' arguments as to the
2004 acceleration notices.
-10-
the acceleration notices to Argentina's fiscal agent as required
by the FAA.
Moreover, in affirming class certification in Seijas I,
we effectively authorized class counsel to act on behalf of each
class and its members and to represent their interests. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(g)(4). Filing acceleration notices in actions
seeking payment of principal due on defaulted bonds does just
that. For Argentina to argue that class counsel's notices strip
individual class members of their right to "strategic[ally]"
decide whether to continue to be "entitled to receive interest
payments that would otherwise have become due" in lieu of unpaid
principal (Appellant's Br. 50) is disingenuous. As Argentina
acknowledges, it ceased servicing this debt in 2001.
Acceleration protects the interest of the class members, and
class counsel properly took collective action on behalf of the
classes to effectuate it.
Accordingly, we affirm the ruling of the district court
in deeming the bonds at issue in Castro, Hickory, and Puricelli
accelerated.
CONCLUSION
We have considered the parties' other arguments on
appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED in part and
VACATED in part and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
-11-