Search for: "Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd." Results 41 - 49 of 49
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Apr 2011, 4:36 pm by Blog Editorial
NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina, heard 29 – 30 March 2011. [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 11:31 pm by Blog Editorial
NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina, heard 29 – 30 March 2011. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 3:29 am by Blog Editorial
On Tuesday 29 and Wednesday 30 March 2011, Lords Phillips, Walker, Mance, Collins and Clarke will hear NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 10:18 am by Saf Hussain
  Between June 2001 and September 2003 NML Capital Ltd bought a number of bonds at between 55.37% – 62.82% of their face value. [read post]
7 May 2010, 2:31 am by traceydennis
NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina Court of Appeal “An English Court had no jurisdiction to enforce a United States court judgment since there was no treaty between the two countries for the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments; the appropriate way was to bring an action on the judgment in England to enforce it. [read post]
8 Feb 2010, 4:07 am by traceydennis
NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina [2010] EWCA Civ 41; [2010] WLR (D) 28 “A court had no jurisdiction to permit a claimant to serve proceedings on a foreign state unless it was satisfied that there was, at the least, a good arguable case that the defendant state was not immune from suit. [read post]
5 Feb 2010, 2:29 am by sally
Supreme Court HM Treasury v Ahmed & Ors [2010] UKSC 5 (04 February 2010) Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Hancox & Anor v R. [2010] EWCA Crim 102 (04 February 2010) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Perinpanathan, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 40 (04 February 2010) The Port of London Authority v Ashmore [2010] EWCA Civ 30 (04 February 2010) Republic of Argentina v… [read post]
11 Feb 2009, 2:07 am
NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina Queen’s Bench Division “A foreign state was not entitled to claim sovereign immunity to avoid enforcement of a judgment validly obtained in another overseas jurisdiction. [read post]