EM Ltd. v. Banco Central de la República Argentina

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “an exercise of power incidental to ownership . . . is not synonymous with control over the instrumentality’s day-to-day operations”
• considering, in alter-ego analysis, sovereign’s billion- dollar borrowing from instrumentality after plaintiffs first sought attachment
• explaining and applying Bancec’s “presumption that government instrumentalities established as juridical entities distinct and independent from their sovereign should normally be treated as such”
• “Missing from plaintiffs’ allegations are any claims that Argentina’s appointment of board members then caused it to interfere in and dictate [the corporation’s] daily business decisions.”
• rejecting as inadequate allegations that the government of Argentina had the power to hire and fire the entity's board members or officers, shared goals and policies with the entity, and coordinated its activities with the entity
• “[A]n exercise of power incidental to ownership ... is not synonymous with control over the instrumentality’s day-to-day operations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).