Filed November 16, 2012
BNY Mellon’s receipt of funds on behalf of the Exchange Holders is not active concert or participation in Argentina’s failure to pay Plaintiffs. It is not an action taken to help, benefit, or assist Argentina, Alemite Mfg., 42 F.2d at 833, nor can it rise to the level of “affirmative assistance” or “concealment” of Argentina’s separate failure to pay Plaintiffs that would lead to a finding of Case 1:08-cv-06978-TPG Document 396 Filed 11/16/12 Page 19 of 26 - 13 - aiding and abetting that failure, In re Sharp Int’l. Corp., 403 F.3d at 50.8 BNY Mellon’s ministerial actions under the Indenture have nothing to do with whether Argentina complies with the Injunction.
Filed January 24, 2017
The Alemite appellant was acting on his own behalf, completely independent from the enjoined defendants. (Alemite, 42 F.2d at 833.) Obviously, while an injunction can run to parties through whom a defendantacts, no injunction can prevent unnamedparties elsewhere in the universe from their ownindependentactionsthat are unrelated to the enjoined defendant.
Filed May 28, 2015
As with Rule 65(d), the Court’s equitable power to bind nonparties is limited to persons who “either abet the defendant, or must be legally identified with him.” Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832, 833 (2d Cir. 1930). In fact, Rule 65 merely codifies this common-law limitation.
Filed May 22, 2013
If it assumes to do so, the decree is pro tanto brutum fulmen, and the persons enjoined are free to ignore it. Alemite Mfg., 42 F.2d at 832. In General Building Contractors, the Supreme Court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 does not allow a court to lawfully enjoin the world at large.
Filed March 16, 2017
Sections B, C, supra. Plaintiffs’ attempt to distinguish Alemite Mfg. Corp.v. Staff(2d Cir. 1930) 42 F.2d 832,833, exposes this fundamentalflaw in their claims. They argue thatthere, “appellant was acting on its own behalf, completely independent from the enjoined defendants.”
Filed November 21, 2016
As Judge Learned Hand explained nearly a century ago, a court is “is not vested with sovereign powersto declare conduct unlawful; its jurisdiction is limited to those over whomit gets personal service, and who therefore can have their day in court.” Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff(2d Cir. 1930) 42 F.2d 832, 832-833. The court emphasized that “[t]his means that the respondent must either abet the defendant, or must belegally identified with him.”
Filed April 22, 2014
Comm. to End War in Viet Nam, 399 U.S. 383, 389 (1970). Plaintiffs must state with specificity not only who is to be bound, Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832, 832 (2d Cir. 1930) (“[N]o court can make a decree which will bind any one but a party; . . . it cannot lawfully enjoin the world at large, [and i]f it assumes to do so, the decree is pro tanto brutum fulmen, and the persons enjoined are free to ignore it.” (opinion of Hand, J.)), but also how they are to be bound, Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 476 (1974) (per Case 1:14-cv-00355-RLY-TAB Document 56 Filed 04/22/14 Page 28 of 75 PageID #: 572 15 curiam) (“Since an injunctive order prohibits conduct under threat of judicial punishment, basic fairness requires that those enjoined receive explicit notice of precisely what conduct is outlawed.”)
Filed November 16, 2012
It would be unprecedented – and unwarranted – to hold liable as aiders and abettors participants in the financial markets doing no more than carrying out their normal business functions and fulfilling their own obligations to third parties. See Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832, 833 (2d Cir. 1930) (“[T]he only occasion when a person not a party may be punished, is when he has helped to bring about, not merely what the decree has forbidden . . . but what it has power to forbid, an act of a party.”).
Filed March 12, 2010
It is axiomatic that “no court can make a decree which will bind any one but a party; a court of equity is as much so limited as a court of law; it cannot lawfully enjoin the world at large, no matter how broadly it words its decree.” Alemite Mfg. Corporation v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832, 832-33 (2d Cir. 1930) (Hand, J.). The Supreme Court has identified six exceptions to the general “rule against nonparty preclusion,” none of which apply here.
Filed March 2, 2010
It is axiomatic that “no court can make a decree which will bind any one but a party; a court of equity is as much so limited as a court of law; it cannot lawfully enjoin the world at large, no matter how broadly it words its decree.” Alemite Mfg. Corporation v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832, 832-33 (2d Cir. 1930) (Hand, J.). The Supreme Court has identified six exceptions to the general “rule against nonparty preclusion,” none of which apply here.