Questa non la sapevo, a cosa serve allora il permesso che hanno dato o daranno agli HO di individuare beni di proprietà dello stato argentino?
[..]
the Supreme Court also sided against Argentina in a related case dealing with the issue of whether or not the holdout creditors can force a pair of banks in New York to disclose information on Argentina’s non-U.S. assets to the debtors seeking repayment. Argentina had argued that it was protected under the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), but
Justice Antonin Scalia argued in his majority opinion that the act does not preclude post-judgment discovery of Argentina’s worldwide assets. Scalia wrote in his opinion that Argentina’s “argument founders at each stop,” noting that the country offered no suitable precedent for its claims. He adds that NML Capital must be allowed to discover what worldwide assets Argentina holds, and where they are, before it can be determined in court whether or not those assets are up for grabs when it comes to the country repaying its debt to the bondholders.
“To be sure, [NML Capital's] request is bound to turn up information about property that Argentina regards as immune,” Scalia writes in his opinion. “But NML may think the same property not immune. In which case, Argentina’s self-serving legal assertion will not automatically prevail; the District Court will have to settle the matter.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion in the 7-1 vote, arguing that the post-judgment discovery should be limited only to Argentina’s commercial assets and should exclude military assets.
In due parole: legittima la richiesta degli HO di individuare i beni, ma sequestrarli è un'altra questione.