After Argentina defaulted on its sovereign bonds as a result of a severe financial crisis back in 2001, creditors spent years locked in battle with a government that refused to pay. In one novel enforcement action, lawyers obtained an order of garnishment and a writ of execution against two helicopter engines owned by the Argentinian military that were undergoing repairs at a GE facility in the United States. This legal maneuver sent a powerful signal: Argentina’s assets could be targeted anywhere in the world.

That signal was sent by litigator Jay Auslander, who represented bondholder HWB Entities in claims against Argentina.¹ Auslander’s expertise and vigorous pursuit of his client’s sovereign bond claim broke this stonewalled decade-long collection case open and set the stage for a major victory for Auslander’s client. Auslander recalls that while “the order of garnishment and writ of execution were ultimately vacated, the seizure and our related enforcement efforts put tremendous pressure on Argentina and jumpstarted settlement negotiations between the parties with terms much more favorable to our client.”

His efforts culminated in Argentina’s May 2017 settlement with HWB for $162.75 million, approved under the supervision of U.S. District Court Special Master Daniel Pollack. He acknowledged Auslander’s key role as counsel in renewing settlement that finally brought resolution to nearly all outstanding “holdout” bondholder claims.

For Auslander, the episode illustrates the essence of his practice: enforcement under pressure. “A lot of people think a judgment is the end of a case,” he says. “But that’s about as realistic as television legal dramas. You get the verdict, the music swells, and it’s over. In reality, getting paid is the hard part. That’s where the work begins.”

A Career Defined by Enforcement and Risk

With nearly four decades of experience, Auslander has built a reputation as one of New York’s leading financial litigators. His practice–Wilk Auslander–spans sovereign debt enforcement, cross-border disputes, distressed assets, and domestic corporate litigation. Auslander’s clients include major hedge funds, private equity firms, investment banks, cryptocurrency companies, and foreign financial institutions.

He is particularly renowned for representing investors holding distressed debt - bonds issued by governments or companies that later default. “A bond is just an IOU,” Auslander explains. “You give me $500; I’ll pay you interest and then pay you back later. When a country or company doesn’t, my clients call me. And then I come in to negotiate leverage.”

That leverage often requires working across multiple jurisdictions and confronting issues of sovereign immunity, sanctions, and geopolitics.

Litigation in the Shadow of Geopolitics

Auslander recently undertook the challenge of steering a major international bank through unparalleled geopolitical headwinds.

Sberbank of Russia, one of the world’s largest banks, was sued for providing material support to terrorists² and then was targeted by sanctions in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. They had been accused of financing the Ukrainian separatists responsible for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 with a surface-to-air missile in 2014. In the face of immense geopolitical blowback, Sberbank turned to the experience of Auslander.

In litigation brought in the Southern District of New York under the Antiterrorism Act of 1992 (ATA), the family of an American victim killed in the downed airliner incident alleged that “small-dollar transfers” moved through financial institutions, including Sberbank, and ultimately supported the separatists.

Because the Russian Federation is the majority owner, Sberbank is considered an instrumentality of the state. Auslander argued for dismissal, as Sberbank holds sovereign immunity and the ATA bars suits against foreign sovereigns. In addition, he reasoned that no financial institution could realistically monitor and intercept such minor transfers.

“Nobody claims the bank downed the jet,” Auslander notes. “The theory is that transfers helped separatists, who then controlled land where a missile was launched.” 

The recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to deny Sberbank’s motion for dismissal carved out a new exception to sovereign immunity that has allowed the family’s suit to proceed for the moment. In his recent petition for a writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court, Auslander is challenging the Second Circuit’s “radical re-interpretation” of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.³ Highlighting two perceived errors in the appeal court’s decision, he argues that the Second Circuit’s decision is “massively consequential”: with a single stroke, every foreign state – friend and foe alike – would potentially be stripped of immunity under the ATA.

Before Buenos Aires, there was Jakarta: Creative Enforcement

Auslander’s career includes some of the most creative judgment-enforcement efforts of the last two decades. Before targeting helicopter engines to force Argentina back to the negotiating table, Auslander demonstrated similar outside-the-box thinking in pursuit of an Indonesian conglomerate that defaulted on debts of $14 billion in 2001.

In the Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) default – the largest emerging-market bond default at the time – Auslander represented Oaktree Capital and other creditors.⁴ APP, controlled by the Widjaja family, had created hundreds of shell companies and special-purpose vehicles to shield assets. Responding to APP’s judgment-evasion tactics, Auslander’s team pursued enforcement aggressively in the U.S. and abroad.

At one point, Auslander’s law firm obtained a writ of execution on behalf of Oaktree Capital and levied APP’s booth at an industry trade show in Orlando, Florida, forcing APP staff out while Orange County sheriffs secured the exhibit. In another action initiated by Auslander, Oaktree was able to garnish essential paper-manufacturing equipment aboard a Maersk cargo ship en route to Singapore. According to contemporaneous filings, Maersk’s counsel called in protest: “You seized my ship.” The episode drew notice across the shipping and paper industries and underscored the lengths that skilled enforcement counsel – such as Auslander - may pursue for their clients.

Shortly afterwards, U.S. Bank retained Auslander to enforce its own $1.2 billion judgment against APP.⁵ His firm pursued enforcement strategies in the U.S., Hong Kong, and Sweden: they disrupted their ability to transact business, enjoined them from making payments to other creditors, and repeatedly obtained court rulings against them.

Left with nowhere to hide, Auslander says that “after three years of aggressive enforcement of U.S. Bank’s judgment, we ultimately forced the judgment debtors to settle the matter in U.S. Bank’s favor.”

Beyond the Courtroom: Adrenaline and Strategy

For Auslander, litigation is not only about the law but about handling risk. Outside the office, he is a mountaineer, cave diver, and offshore fisherman. “I thrive on risk management,” he says. “Whether it’s climbing a mountain or arguing sovereign immunity in court, you need preparation, discipline, and the ability to act under pressure.”

Auslander is a self-confessed “adrenaline junkie,” which offers a valuable insight into his remarkable legal career. But he rejects simplistic metaphors, likening litigation to war or hunting. “Those comparisons are too macho and superficial,” he says. “Litigation involves strategy, diplomacy, analysis, oratory, and discretion. It’s not bloodshed. It’s about solving problems under extraordinary pressure.”

Rather than following the well-trodden path of other litigators, Auslander thrives on overcoming what others presume to be impenetrable obstacles. He finds opportunity in the chaos, where he practices a form of “litigation at the edge.”

Looking Ahead in a Volatile World

Auslander does not expect the demand for his work to diminish. “It’s always risky to predict,” he cautions. “But with democracies under strain, authoritarian states flexing power, crypto challenging fiat currencies, and social media accelerating chaos, I don’t see a well-ordered peace in the cards. Each case will differ, but the overall landscape isn’t going away.”

That reality ensures financial litigation, and lawyers like Auslander, will remain in demand. His cases demonstrate that enforcing a judgment is often as complex as winning one, requiring creativity, cross-border maneuvering, and persistence against sovereigns and multinationals alike.

For Auslander, the appeal is not only professional but personal. “This work gives me the same thrill as climbing a mountain,” he says. “It demands focus, courage, and strategy. And I absolutely love it.”

Disclaimer:

The views and opinions expressed in this Attorney Feature are those of the author, and not necessarily those of The National Law Review (NLR). The NLR does not answer legal questions, nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor. See Legal Disclaimer below and https://natlawreview.com/national-law-review-terms-use .

1 HWD Victoria Strategies Portfolio et al v. The Republic of Argentina, No. 1:2007-CV-11382 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).

2 Thomas Schansman et al. v. Sberbank of Russia PJSC et al., No. 1:19-CV-02985-ALC-GWG (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

3 Sberbank of Russia PJSC v. Schansman et al., petition for cert. pending, No. 1:19-CV-02985-ALC-GWG (filed June 23, 2025).

4 Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC. et al. v APP Int’l. Finance Co., B.V. et al., Index No. 603315/02 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004).

5 U.S. Bank National Association v. APP Int’l. Finance Co., B.V. et al., Index No. 600405/2004 (N.Y. App. Div.2006).