Deutsche Securities Sociedad de Bolsa

Deutsche Bank in Argentina

January 17th 1887. Since that date Deutsche Bank has been present in Argentina’s banking and financial arenas. In line with local market trends, global industry perspectives and our regional and headquarters’ strategy, Deutsche Bank is today the perfect synonym of Investment Banking in Buenos Aires. more

 

 Deutsche Bank S.A.
Edificio República
Tucumán 1, Piso 14°
(C1049AAA) Buenos Aires, Argentina

Tel: +54 11 4590-2800
Fax: +45 11 4590-2882

dbargentina@list.db.com

Deutsche Securities Sociedad de Bolsa

¿Quiénes Somos?

Deutsche Securities Sociedad de Bolsa S.A. es una organización especializada en operaciones de bolsa en el Mercado de Valores de Buenos Aires.
Fruto de nuestro esfuerzo profesional y una clara estrategia a largo plazo hemos logrado el liderazgo en los mercados que hemos identificado como clave.
Poseemos dos acciones del Mercado de Valores de Buenos Aires.
Nuestra organización mantiene una fuerte política de servicio, eficiencia y confiabilidad para el cliente. Esto nos permite no solo ejecutar eficientemente las órdenes de nuestros clientes, sino que además encontrar y ofrecer un amplio portafolio de oportunidades de inversión.

¿Qué hacemos?

Deutsche Securities Sociedad de Bolsa S.A. busca permitir a los clientes del grupo Deutsche Bank acceso a la Bolsa de Comercio de Buenos Aires.
Operamos por cartera propia y por cuenta de nuestros clientes en toda la gama de operaciones bursátiles admitidas en el Mercado de Valores de Buenos Aires: Compra-venta de acciones, títulos públicos, privados y obligaciones negociables, indices, CEDEAR´s y colocación de cauciones.
Tomamos ciertas posiciones de cartera propia a fines de aprovechar los movimientos del mercado y las oportunidades de inversión que pudieran presentarse en la Bolsa de Comercio de Buenos Aires.
Accedemos a contrapartes y clientes que participan en la Bolsa de Comercio de Buenos Aires.

¿Cómo operamos?

Deutsche Securities Sociedad de Bolsa S.A. realiza las transacciones bursátiles de su cartera propia y de sus clientes a través de la Bolsa de Comercio de Buenos Aires por medio del Sistema Integrado por Computación (SINAC) o a través de la Sesión Contínua de Negociación (Continuo).

Sistema de Consultas de Tenencias

https://inversor.sba.com.ar
Deutsche Securities
Sociedad de Bolsa S.A.,
Edificio República,
Tucumán 1, Piso 13,

(C1049AAA) Buenos Aires,

Tel:+54 11 4590 2853/2814
Fax:+54 11 4590 2899

 

Deutsche Securities Sociedad de Bolsa S.A / das ist wohl eine Tochter der Deutsche Bank AG Ffm / dort sollte man den emissionserlös pfänden können....natürlich nicht den ganzen...aber unseren anteil dara...

PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION
The Province intends to offer the Notes to the initial purchasers, Merrill Lynch Argentina S.A. and
Deutsche Securities Sociedad de Bolsa S.A. Banco Provincia is acting as local co-manager, not as an initial
purchaser. Banco Provincia may receive the Notes from the initial purchasers and they may take such action with
respect to the Notes as permitted herein. Subject to the terms and conditions contained in a purchase agreement
between the Province and the initial purchasers, the Province has agreed to sell to the initial purchasers and the
initial purchasers have agreed to severally purchase from the Province USD 750,000,000 principal amount of the
Notes. Affiliates of Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank may distribute the Notes outside of Argentina, however
affiliates of Banco Provincia may not distribute Notes outside of Argentina.
The initial purchasers have agreed to purchase all of the Notes being sold pursuant to the purchase
agreement if any of these Notes are purchased. The initial purchasers have advised the Province that they propose
initially to offer the Notes at the price listed on the cover page of this Luxembourg Listing Prospectus.

S 131 Prospectus

Klagen vs PBA // aus dem prospectus des PBA-Bondes wie unten gekauft (2011 - 26.1.2021, 10.875%)

The Province is a defendant in various lawsuits relating to its default on its public external indebtedness.
There are currently 13 lawsuits pending against the Province relating to the Province’s 2002 default on its
bonds.

In the United States of America, there are currently seven lawsuits against the Province regarding due and
unpaid interest and principal, amounting to USD 509,000 and EUR 201,000 (excluding interest). As of the date of
this Luxembourg Listing Prospectus, there have been final and non-appealable judgments against the Province in six
of these lawsuits and one case remains pending.

In Germany, there are four lawsuits against the Province, of which
judgments against the Province in three of these cases are final and non-appealable and one is still pending
resolution of an appeal filed by the Province. The principal amount of these lawsuits (excluding interest) totals EUR
2,517,000.

In Switzerland, there are two lawsuits against the Province, for a principal amount of CHF 570,000
excluding interest. In both lawsuits there has been a final and non-appealable judgment entered against the Province.
The total amount of unpaid interest and principal due pursuant to these judgments is less than 0.1% of the Province’s
total revenues included in its budget for 2011. The Province can give no assurance that further litigation will not
result in even more substantial judgments against the Province. Present or future litigation could result in the
attachment or injunction of assets of the Province that it intends for other uses, including payments due under the
Notes, and could have a material adverse effect on the Province’s public finances.

habe heute ein paar 100.000$ (kindersperre) vom PBA $ 10.875% 2021 zu 72 gekauft....verfallsrendite 18.99% und fikt quell 15%

habe heute ein paar der 100.000$ (kindersperre) vom PBA $ 10.875% 2021 zu 72 gekauft....verfallsrendite 18.99% und fikt quell 15%

berechnung:

 direkte rendite: 10.875 ./. 0.72 = 15.1041% (natürlich aufs eingesetzte kapital bezogen) und 15% fikt quellst für deutsche

8.6te wurzel aus 100 ./.72 tilgungsgewinn:

3.8937% p.a.

15.1041 + 3.8937 = 18.9978 !!!!

da ist doch mal was.....

La Nacion

US $2.180 billion is taken from BCRA



Friday, April 27, 2012



By Martin Kanenguiser



The government yesterday places a Treasury Letter at the Central Bank
(BCRA) to pay debt to private creditors with reserves, in a decision
that will allow for covering debt payments this year but will generate
more pressure on the value of the dollar.  Through resolution
131/2012, the Economy Ministry, led by Hernan Lorenzino, emitted a
letter of US$5.674 billion, and those funds will make up the Debt
Reduction Fund for this year to pay the bondholders.



This decision comes before the BCRA decides the level of reserves that
is necessary to pay debt, after the recent reform of the charter done
because the entity had been without freely-available reserves to be
able to continue making payments in the manner done in the previous
two years.



In the findings of the resolution, published yesterday in the Official
Bulletin, it is explained that the board led by Mercedes Marcó del
Pont will have to “determine the level of necessary reserves for the
execution of the currency exchange policy, and the resulting
freely-available reserves which exceed that level.”



The letter will be fully paid in 10 years, at a rate “equivalent to
what the international reserves of the BCRA yield up to a maximum
equivalent to Libor (the London interbank rate) minus one percentage
point.”  As such, it will be an interest rate close to 0.04% annually,
which will affect the patrimonial situation of the BCRA in the medium
term, as happened with the payment of the debt with the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the previous debt reduction funds.



The date of emission of the letters is fixed to April 20, 2012 and its
amortization will be made integrally to the maturity in one decade.
The movement of the reserves will take place, according to the
resolution, “in various tranches”, without further details.



The first, approved yesterday quickly by the BCRA board, will allow
the Treasury to appropriate US$2.18 billion to pay debt to private
bondholders in the first half of the year and even recover funds that
it set aside for payment those balances in the first quarter of the
year, which is to say, before the BCRA would again be able to help in
that task.



The most important objectives that the Treasury’s financial program
has this year are the payment of the last installment of the Boden
2012 in August and, in December, the coupon attached to GDP, magnified
by the official decision to report a greater growth figure than the
private sector.  Financial analysts consulted by LA NACION said that,
with the start of this new stage of the debt reduction fund, the
government could cover its obligations this year without any stress.



José Echagüe of Quantus Finanzas said that the amount of US$5.764
billion “is not capricious, because it is US$2.2 billion for the Boden
2012 and US$3.6 billion for the GDP coupon (of which US$800 million is
paid in pesos) and the rest is for the payment of smaller installments
of the Boden 2015 and the Bonar 10.”



With a similar analysis, Federico Bragagnolo of Econviews argued that
“with these funds they’ll be able to cover all of the debt payments in
principal and interest with the private sector for the whole year.”
He added that the Treasury might also continue using BCRA funds to pay
debt with multilateral organizations.



A little-valued guarantee



This certainty doesn’t translate into an improvement of the price of
bonds emitted by the government which quote on the markets.  On the
contrary, they remain among the most battered even among their
emerging market peers.



This is due, according to former finance secretary Lisandro Barry, to
“a strong legal uncertainty on the part of foreign companies which are
trying to take out as much of their funds as possible through the
mechanism of liquidity.”  This leads the government to study the ways
to complicate this tool for taking out funds.



Barry said that the loss of BCRA reserves through the movement of
funds to pay Treasury debt “will create some uncertainty, which will
be reflected in an acceleration of the exchange rate gap.”



A recent report from the Bein firm also takes into account this effect
of the drop in bonds.  “The main reflection of this situation is given
by the spike in the exchange rate gap, which is placed around 25%,
above devaluation expectations at one year implicit in New York
futures (23%),” he said.

Capital Ventures International v. Republic of Argentina, (2nd Cir. 2011)

Federal Circuits

Docket Number: 10-4520

Parts: OPN

Linked as:

• 
  

Text

---

10-4520-cv (L)

Capital Ventures International v. Republic of Argentina

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

August Term, 2010

(Heard: December 16, 2010 Decided: July 20, 2011)

Docket Nos. 10-4520-cv(Lead), 10-4523-cv(Con), 10-4511-cv(Con), 10-4834-cv(Con)

CAPITAL VENTURES INTERNATIONAL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

-- v.--

REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA,

Defendant-Appellee.

B e f o r e:

LEVAL, CALABRESI and LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

Appeals from orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of

New York (Thomas P. Griesa, Judge) modifying attachments imposed following remand

in Capital Ventures International v. Republic of Argentina, 443 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2006).

We conclude that appellant Capital Ventures International is entitled to maintain its

attachments as originally ordered.

 

 http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/ventures-international-republic-argentina-302909602

 

Why not expel a thieving Buenos Aires from the G-20?

In Case You Missed It:

Wall Street Journal
The Argentine Model
April 17, 2012
Why not expel a thieving Buenos Aires from the G-20?
'I'm the head of state, not a thug," Argentine President Cristina Kirchner felt it necessary to explain on Monday in Buenos Aires. This is never a good sign from a politician.
And, sure enough, she was trying to defend her decision to nationalize the oil company YPF by expropriating 51% of the shares belonging to majority owner Repsol from Spain, an act the civilized world is calling "theft." Only Hugo Chávez applauded.
In modern Latin America, Brazil is a growing economic power, Mexico has developed a middle class, and Colombia, Chile and Peru have joined the world economy. Then there's Argentina, which seems intent on fulfilling all the political and economic stereotypes that have made that blessed land so much poorer than it should be.
Click here to view the full article.

that it accounts for 78 percent of all cases brought against G-20 countries in the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. ICSID has issued awards totaling nearly $1 billion in cases so far against Argentina, which it refuses to respect.

In Case You Missed It:

The Examiner
Obama should not reward Argentina's bad behavior
By Robert J. Shapiro
April 17, 2012
In the wake of yesterday's move by the Argentine government to nationalize the Spanish oil company YPF/Repsol, Latin America's third-largest economy has provoked a new round of sanctions and consternation from the international community. This comes after many governments and international organizations have expressed their extreme displeasure with Argentine policy over the past year.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, or USTR, recently revoked Argentina's preferential trade status, citing the country's refusal to respect the World Bank and pay $300 million in restitution to American investors. As a beneficiary, Argentina exported $477 million of goods to the U.S. duty-free last year.
So egregious is Argentina's disregard for international law and covenants that it accounts for 78 percent of all cases brought against G-20 countries in the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. ICSID has issued awards totaling nearly $1 billion in cases so far against Argentina, which it refuses to respect.

Robert J. Shapiro, co-chairman of American Task Force Argentina, is chairman of Sonecon and former undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration.

Click here to view the full article.
Click here to view an image of the full article in today's Examiner.

Home Cleary Stops Bondholders from Attaching Argentina's Patents

Font Size:

Cleary Stops Bondholders from Attaching Argentina's Patents

Nate RaymondContactAll Articles

March 23, 2012

Bondholders have won billions of dollars in judgments against Argentina stemming from its 2002 default, but have struggled to collect on them. Vulture fund Aurelius, represented by Simpson Thacher, unsuccessfully tried to get attachment orders against U.S. patents issued to Argentinian state entities as a way to satisfy some of its judgments.

http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/digestTAL.jsp?id=1202546783664

Nml Capital, Ltd., Em Ltd v. the Republic of Argentina (2d Cir. 03/30/2012)

Nml Capital, Ltd., Em Ltd v. the Republic of Argentina

(2d Cir. 03/30/2012)

April 9, 2012

• Print
• Email
• Reprints & Permissions
• Write to the Editor

Argued: December 7, 2011
Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge, CABRANES and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
Appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Thomas P. Griesa, Judge), granting and confirming attachment and restraining orders against a New York bank account owned by the Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica ("ANPCT"), an instrumentality of the Republic of Argentina, pursuant to the commercial use exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. The District Court correctly held that the funds in the ANPCT Account were subject to attachment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1610 because they were "used for a commercial activity in the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1610(a). Affirmed.
The question presented is whether certain funds owned by the Republic of Argentina (the "Republic" or "Argentina") were subject to attachment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1610 because they were "used for a commercial activity in the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1610(a).*fn1 To resolve this question, we must decide whether the Republic's payment of the purchase price of commercial goods to a seller on behalf of a third party recipient constitutes a "commercial activity" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq.*fn2
This appeal arises from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Thomas P. Griesa, Judge), granting and confirming attachment and restraining orders against a bank account*fn3 owned by the Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica ("ANPCT"), an instrumentality of the Republic, pursuant to the commercial use exception to the FSIA.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs-appellees NML Capital, Ltd. ("NML") and EM Ltd. ("EM") (jointly, the "plaintiffs") have acquired on the secondary market hundreds of millions of dollars of non-performing bonds issued by the Republic.*fn4 In due course, the plaintiffs began to bring suit in United States courts to collect the debt. In these eleven consolidated appeals, they moved to attach a New York bank account owned by ANPCT, a sub-unit of Argentina's Ministry of Science, Technology, and Productive Innovation. ANPCT asserts that it employs this account (the "ANPCT Account" or the "Account") for the sole purpose of purchasing scientific equipment for use by grant beneficiaries. Beneficiaries contract with equipment sellers directly, and receive the purchased goods directly from the sellers; ANPCT's only involvement is to remit the prearranged payment to the sellers.
On September 12, 2008, the plaintiffs, moving on an ex parte basis, sought and obtained from the District Court restraining orders (for the actions that had reached final judgment) and attachment orders (for the actions in the pre-judgment phase) seizing the ANPCT Account. On that date, the Account contained more than $3.26 million. On September 30, 2009, the District Court confirmed the restraining orders (but not the attachment orders) to the extent they related to the ANPCT Account, holding that the Account was attachable under § 1610 of the FSIA. NML Capital Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, No. 08 Civ. 3302, Docket No. 171, at 16 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2009)*fn5 ; see note 1, ante. The District Court reasoned that under "the most rudimentary definition," the Account is "used for commercial activity" because "ANPCT funds have been used to purchase scientific equipment." Id. The District Court further explained that by using the Account to buy equipment, the Republic was "acting as a 'private player' in the marketplace, in the same way as any private party engaging in commerce." Id.
The plaintiffs subsequently moved for reconsideration with respect to the pre-judgment attachment orders as they related to the ANPCT Account. On September 30, 2010, the District Court acknowledged its "mistake" and confirmed the attachments of the ANPCT Account. The Republic now appeals the underlying restraining and attachment orders, as well as the orders confirming the restraint and attachment of the ANPCT Account, claiming that the District Court should have granted it immunity from execution pursuant to the FSIA.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
*fn1 In pertinent part, 28 U.S.C. § 1610(a) provides that "[t]he property in the United States of a foreign state . . . used for a commercial activity in the United States, shall not be immune from attachment . . . or from execution . . . if (1) the foreign state has waived its immunity from attachment in aid of execution or from execution either explicitly or by implication." 28 U.S.C. § 1610(a). Argentina has waived its immunity from attachment. See EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 473 F.3d 463, 480-81 & n.18 (2d Cir. 2007).
*fn2 We note that, unlike the more frequently-litigated § 1605, § 1610 does not require that the commercial activity giving rise to jurisdiction be related to the action itself. Compare, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2) ("A foreign state shall not be immune from . . . jurisdiction . . . in any case . . . (2) in which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state . . . ."), with id. § 1610(a), ante.
*fn3 The bank account is held at the New York branch of the Banco de la Nacion Argentina.
*fn5 The full text of the District Court's order is available under the caption of a related case. See EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, No. 08 Civ. 7974 (TPG), 2009 WL 3149601 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2009).
*fn6 In full, 28 U.S.C. § 1609 provides that "[s]ubject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act[,] the property in the United States of a foreign state shall be immune from attachment[,] arrest[,] and execution except as provided in sections 1610 and 1611 of this chapter."
*fn7 We note that 28 U.S.C. § 1611, which exempts certain types of property from attachment, is not applicable here.
*fn8 See Letelier, 748 F.2d at 796 (noting that "Congress intended the 'essential nature' of given behavior to determine its status for purposes of the commercial activities exception, and gave the courts a 'great deal of latitude' to decide this issue." (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-1487, at 16)).
*fn9 The Republic leans heavily on our decision in Kato v. Ishihara to support the argument that the ANPCT has not undertaken "commercial activity" here because the payments are not made "on its own behalf," Kato, 360 F.3d at 112. But Kato involved alleged sexual harassment that the plaintiff suffered while engaging in "promotional activities on behalf of Japanese companies" in New York. Id. at 109. The Republic has identified no authority for the proposition that the purchase of goods in the market is not commercial activity.
*fn10 The Republic's argument that it was not acting as a "merchant in the marketplace" is similarly unavailing. A party need not be a merchant in order to engage in commercial activity. See, e.g., Tex. Trading & Mill. Corp., 647 F.2d at 310 (finding that Nigeria had engaged in commercial activity despite being the end recipient of goods rather than a merchant engaged in trade).

 http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202548433020

Latham, Cleary Have Deep Ties to Deals at Heart of Argentine Oil Nationalization

By Brian BaxterContactAll Articles

April 17, 2012

• Print
• Email
• Reprints & Permissions
• Post a Comment

This week's controversial move by the Argentine government to partially nationalize Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales (YPF), the local subsidiary of Madrid-based oil giant Repsol, has provoked an international imbroglio, with the Spanish government threatening retaliation over the plan.
The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial Tuesday that Repsol should fight for compensation from Argentina and its combative president Cristina Kirchner, who most recently made waves about wresting back the potentially oil-rich Falkland Islands—known as Las Malvinas to Argentines—from the U.K. Bloomberg reports that the bid by the Argentine state to take control of YPF is the largest natural resource renationalization since Russia seized control of Yukos in 2003.
Repsol has publicly valued its holdings in YPF, the largest oil and gas producer in Argentina, at roughly $18 billion—about $8 billion more than YPF's market capitalization of $10.5 billion, a valuation already rejected by the Argentine government. And with YPF also accounting for about 35 percent of Repsol's consolidated earnings, according to MarketWatch, Repsol shares sank 6 percent Tuesday as shareholders shuddered at the thought of Argentina snatching a controlling 51 percent stake in the business.
While Repsol has claimed that it will indeed seek compensation for YPF—with international arbitration one potential option—several media representatives for the company did not respond to requests for comment on the names of any outside law firms it may have lined up for the forthcoming battle. (Luis Suarez de Lezo Mantilla, Repsol's general counsel and secretary, serves on YPF's board of directors.)
When it comes to the Repsol's involvement in Argentina, Latham & Watkins and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton are two Am Law 100 firms likely to play important roles as the dispute between the company and Buenos Aires plays out in the months, and possibly, years ahead.
A Latham spokeswoman said the firm would not comment about its relationship with Repsol, which was fully privatized in 1997, and which purchased a 97.81 percent stake in YPF two years later. Repsol's share of YPF has been whittled to 57 percent in the years since. Latham advised Repsol in one of the most substantial of those transactions in 2007, when Argentina's Grupo Petersen agreed to buy 15 percent of YPF with a future option to increase its stake to roughly 25 percent.
Latham corporate partners Jose Luis Blanco and Ignacio Pallares, who joined the firm in 2006 from top Spanish firm Cuatrecasas, Goncalves Pereira when Latham opened in Barcelona and Madrid, have been key legal advisers to Repsol.
Blanco, who serves as managing partner of Latham's Spanish offices, and Pallares represented the company in 2010 on the $7.1 billion sale of a 40 percent stake in its Brazilian unit to Sinopec, China's state-owned oil company.
According to The American Lawyer's 2011 international arbitration scorecard, firms advising Repsol in various arbitration proceedings around the world include Argentine firm Perez Alati, Grondona, Benites, Arntsen & Martinez de Hoz, Jr., Magic Circle firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Paris-based Derains & Gharavi, Spanish legal giant Uria Menendez, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.
Latham and Cleary are considered top firms for international arbitration work. Like Latham, Cleary is also well connected to previous YPF machinations, via both the firm's ties to the Argentine government, as well its representation of Argentina's wealthy Eskenazi family, which controls Grupo Petersen.
Grupo Petersen turned to lawyers from Cleary, Spanish firm Garrigues, and Buenos Aires-based Brons & Salans for outside counsel on the 2007 transaction in which it acquired its initial YPF stake. When Grupo Petersen used its option to boost that stake last year, Cleary corporate partners Andres de la Cruz and David Aman and Garrigues partners Monica Martin de Vidales and Gonzalo Rivera Gomez handled the matter.
While the Eskenazi family had openly fretted that its stake in YPF could be swept up in Kirchner's nationalization efforts, by Tuesday it was clear that Grupo Petersen's 25.46 percent stake in the oil company would remain safe, although the Eskenazis could still find themselves at risk of default.
Cleary, which has been busy in recent months representing the Greek government on sovereign debt issues, has long counseled the Argentine government on its ongoing fight with creditors stemming from the country's own debt default in 2001, which many considered a template for the Greek crisis. (Click here and here for the details on some of Cleary's cases for Argentina from The American Lawyer's international arbitration scorecard.)
Several spokeswomen for Cleary did not respond to requests for comment from The Am Law Daily on Tuesday about whether the firm has assumed an advisory role in the YPF nationalization row.

You must be signed in to comment on an article

 http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202549326757&slreturn=1

Teil-VerstaatlichungArgentinien will Repsol-Tochter YPF enteignen

16.04.2012, 20:15 Uhr

Argentinien will den größten Ölkonzern des Landes Ölkonzern teilweise verstaatlichen. 51 Prozent der Aktien von YPF soll in Staatsbesitz übergehen. Der Mutterkonzern Repsol würde damit die Kontrolle über YPF verlieren

YPF soll teilweise verstaatlicht werden. Quelle: AFP

Argentinien hat erste Schritte zur Enteignung der Repsol-Tochter YPF ergriffen. Dem Kongress wurde am Montag ein entsprechender Gesetzentwurf der Regierung vorgelegt. Staatschefin Cristina Fernández de Kirchner begründete in einer Fernsehansprache die geplante Enteignung der vom spanischen Repsol kontrollierten, größten Erdölfirma Argentiniens mit dem Ausbleiben von Investitionen. Die Regierung hat die Mehrheit in beiden Parlamentskammern.

Spaniens Industrieminister José Manuel Soria hatte Argentinien in der Vorwoche vor den negativen Konsequenzen einer Verstaatlichung der Repsol-Tochter gewarnt. „Die spanische Regierung verteidigt die Interessen aller spanischen Unternehmen im Inland und Ausland“, sagte der Minister.
Die Gesetzesvorlage sieht die Verstaatlichung von 51 Prozent der Aktien von YPF vor. Die Enteignung betrifft knapp 25,5 Prozent, die sich in Händen der argentinischen Unternehmerfamilie Eskenazi befinden, und weitere 25 Prozent von Repsol. Der spanische Erdöl-Konzern würde so die Kontrolle über YPF verlieren.

dpa

 

 http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/teil-verstaatlichung-argentinien-will-repsol-tochter-ypf-enteignen/6516820.html

 

Argentina Default Risk Surges On YPF Nationalization, CDS Approach 1000 bps

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/16/2012 13:24 -0400

• Capital Markets
• CDS
• default
• Nationalization

It would appear that the recent renewed excitement down in the Falklands was indeed the writing on the wall for a nation that is now desperate enough to nationalize foreign entities. Argentina, still unable to access capital markets years after its restructuring appears to be hitting an irrational wall again as its CDS has exploded wider recently, and even more so today with the YPF news, to near 1000bps - its widest in 4 months. Simply put this is not rational in any game-theoretic strategy and is frighteningly indicative of a supreme (irrecoverable) defection from friends-with-benefits status of the world - indicative only of massive internal problems in the South American nation. But do not worry, as Lagarde and her friends will just bring a bigger bag around to the next G-20 meeting as we are sure the IMF's members will have enough money to deal with Argentina AND Europe.

Chart: Bloomberg

 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/argentina-default-risk-surges-ypf-nationalization-cds-approach-1000-bps

EMTA is pleased to present a Special Seminar on “Argentina and Its Pari Passu Clause”

EMTA is pleased to present a Special Seminar on “Argentina and Its Pari Passu Clause”.

This Seminar will be held on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, at 360 Madison Avenue (on 45th St. between Madison and 5th Aves.), 17th Floor in New York City.

Registration is at 11:15 a.m. 

Discussion will begin at 11:30 a.m. (and end at 1:30 p.m.) 

Lunch will be served.

Argentina has been the subject of a number of court decisions, most recently the December 2011 and February 2012 Orders, in which Judge Griesa has seemingly adopted the broader interpretation of the pari passu clause, which could potentially affect the way that other non-litigating creditors of Argentina are paid and the way that the payment intermediaries conduct their business.  Without re-litigating these decisions, EMTA’s panel will explore some of the issues raised by the plaintiffs, the defendant and various amici in these cases (including differing interpretations of the pari passu clause, as well as appropriate remedies for breaches of sovereign obligations).

James Kerr (Davis Polk) and Whitney Debevoise (Arnold & Porter) will lead the discussion.

Recent litigation involving Argentina can be found in the Argentina area of EMTA’s website: http://www.emta.org/template.aspx?id=5015.

This presentation is part of a continuing series of panels and presentations that EMTA is pleased to sponsor on various topics of interest to Emerging Markets investors and other market participants, and is part of EMTA’s Legal & Compliance Seminars.  CLE credit for NY attorneys is pending.  This seminar is non-transitional and appropriate for experienced attorneys only. Please click here or details on EMTA’s Financial Hardship Policy.

Views expressed by panelists and presenters are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of EMTA or of any of its member firms.

Attendance

Attendance for EMTA members is US$50 / Non-members is US$495.

Registration

To register, please CLICK HERE if you have previously registered for an EMTA event or you are an EMTA member with login credentials.

Or, if you have never before registered for an EMTA event or you are an EMTA member without login credentials, please CLICK HERE.

Cancellation

Cancellations must be received by 11:30 a.m. (EST), Tuesday, April 17, 2012, or you will be charged the full amount. Substitute delegates may be sent at no additional charge. Please contact Suzette Ortiz at sortiz@emta.org.

For more information, please contact Aviva Werner at EMTA at +1 (646) 289-5412 or by email at awerner@emta.org.

EMTA offers a wide range of Emerging Markets information. Please see our website at: http://www.emta.org.

This e-mail was sent from EMTA, Trade Association For The Emerging Markets (sortiz@emta.org) to rolfjkoch@web.de.

Erfolgreiche Durchsetzungen von Zahlungsurteilen gegen Staaten als souveräne Schuldner Zahlstellenpfändung der vergessenen Zinsgelder1

Erfolgreiche Durchsetzungen von Zahlungsurteilen gegen
Staaten als souveräne Schuldner
Zahlstellenpfändung der vergessenen Zinsgelder1
- 361.293,05 € -
Eine Überlegung und Dokumentation2 von Rolf Koch
Abstrakt
In den Jahren 2004/05 gelang erstmals zu Gunsten zweier Inhaber unbedienter argentinischer
Staatsanleihen (unter deutschem Recht begeben) eine definitive Vollstreckung und Pfändung
vs. die Republik Argentinien. Es wurden vergessene Zahlstellengelder (214.967,56 € bei der
Credit Suisse, 124.470,64 € + 1.040,10 € bei der Deutschen Bank und 20.814,75 € bei der
Dresdner Bank) am Bankenplatz Frankfurt gepfändet und nach § 839 ZPO beim Amtsgericht
Frankfurt hinterlegt. Die Idee, das Konzept und Teile der Durchführung stammen von Rolf
Koch. Weitere Perspektiven zukünftiger Vollstreckungsansätze, die kurz angerissen werden,
sind die Pfändung von Alt-Umtauschbonds bei Cleastream Banking Frankfurt , der
Ansatz der Pari Passu Klausel bzw. Gleichrangklausel und nicht zu Letzt der Königsweg
der „Zwangsvollstreckung“, die Exequatur.

http://www.rolfjkoch.net/arg-forum/arg-forum-golive/arg-forum-golive-v-1/web-content/pdf/arbeiten/zahlstellen-pfueb-s-1-15.pdf

ICSID: The government suspects that the vulture funds are the owners of the sentences to be collected // ICSID Schiedssprüche sind verkäuflich / Argy erwägt Forderungen mit USD-Discount-Bonds nach NY-Law zu bezahlen

El Cronista

ICSID: The government suspects that the vulture funds are the owners of the sentences to be collected

Thursday, April 12, 2012

By Carlos Arbia

It refers to the sentences in the lawsuits of Azurix and CMS, which come to US$300 million. The government wants to pay then with bonds that were not issued in the last swap.

At the Economy Ministry and also inside the Foreign Ministry, there are suspicions that the companies Azurix and CMS, two U.S. companies that won lawsuits in the ICSID against Argentina, are no longer the owners of the debts that come to about US$300 million, as decided by the tribunal administered by the World Bank. The owners of those balances would be two vulture funds.

Faces with that concern, the main alternative being analyzed by the administration of Cristina Fernández is contemplating the possibility of paying those judgments with discount bonds under New York legislation that were not emitted in the debt swap.

There still remains about US$3.5 billion left to emit on those bonds.

In recent days, Argentine government sources asked the administration of Barack Obama to remit information around who is the true owner of the judgment won by Azurix before the ICSID, and if it’s seen as U.S. person or entity, as information has already circulated that the decision was sold on the secondary market, and that as such the water provider company no longer has the right to collect. “We still don’t have a response,” said the Executive Branch on the request made to U.S. authorities. And they said that “it’s not true, or at least it’s not known today, that an American company is the owner of that judgment.” In turn, it’s known that the company CMS sold its debt to the investment fund Blue Ridge.

This is in line with the position that the Foreign Ministry argues as well as the ambassador in Washington, Jorge Arguello, on how “the new owners of the Azurix and Blue Ridge judgments would never accept starting the process for collection on the sentences (in national courts), according to the rules of the arbitration entity and Argentine legislation.” Among the alternatives that are being studied to pay the debt are: a payment of discount bonds in dollars that still are left over from the payment of the restructuring of the debt (Swap I and II) and this would be the one which would have greatest acceptance on the part of the vulture funds. This is the position of the Treasury Solicitor, who wants the companies who won the cases after the economic emergency law came into effect in 2002 to follow the procedures to collect in local courtrooms. There is also the possibility that the government and the companies could come to an agreement outside the realm of ICSID.

Pfändung des Collaterals der Brady Bonds bei der FRoNY

CAPITAL VENTURES INTERNATIONAL v. REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA

CAPITAL VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-2591-CV.

Argued:  Dec. 23, 2005. -- March 23, 2006

Before:  MESKILL and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges, and KAPLAN, District Judge.*

Kenneth G. Roberts, Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jennifer F. Beltrami and Jill L. Mandell on brief), for Plaintiff-Appellant.Jonathan I. Blackman, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York, N.Y. (Carmine D. Boccuzzi on brief), for Defendant-Appellee.

Plaintiff Capital Ventures International (“CVI”) appeals from denial of its motions for an order of attachment and for reconsideration of that ruling.

Background

A. The Brady Plan

In the late 1980s, after a number of Latin-American nations defaulted on their external debt, then United States Treasury Secretary Nicholas F. Brady developed a debt relief program known as the Brady Plan. Under its auspices, the Republic of Argentina (“Argentina”) negotiated the restructuring of much of its medium and long-term commercial debt in April of 1992, exchanging an estimated $28.5 billion in unsecured commercial bonds for a series of collateralized bonds due in 2023 (the “Brady Bonds”).   The Brady Bonds were secured, pursuant to a 1992 Collateral Pledge Agreement, by United States Treasury and German government bonds (the “Brady Collateral”) owned by Argentina and held by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“FRBNY”).  The Brady Collateral was divided between two separate accounts, one securing Argentina's payment upon maturity of the principal of the Brady Bonds (the “Principal Collateral”) and the other securing interest payments to Brady Bond holders prior to maturity (the “Interest Collateral”).

B. The 1994 Bonds

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1379812.html

Bondholder beats Argentina at 2nd Circ-but still may not recover // Pfändung des colleterals der Brady Bonds

Bondholder beats Argentina at 2nd Circ-but still may not recover

7/21/2011COMMENTS (0)

For vulture funds holding defaulted Argentinean bonds, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has been a brick wall with only the tiniest of chinks. In recent years, the appellate court has rejected all sorts of clever stratagems the bondholders and their lawyers have dreamed up in an effort to get their hands on Argentine assets. It even includes an attempt to attach assets belonging to Argentina's central bank and pension system.
One notable exception to the rule of bondholder frustration at the Second Circuit was the appellate court's 2006 ruling that a holder called Capital Ventures International had the right to attach Argentine collateral (in the form of U.S. and German government securities) held by the Federal Reserve Bank in New York. Argentina put up the securities to back its 1992 issuance of so-called "Brady bonds," which, under a plan pushed by then-Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady, exchanged $28.5 billion in defaulted bonds for collateralized Brady bonds due in 2023. The Second Circuit's 2006 ruling meant that if Argentina attempted to restructure or exchange the Brady bonds before their 2023 maturity, CVI was first in line to get its hand on the securities held at the Fed.
There was just one big problem with the 2006 appellate ruling for CVI and its lawyers at Ballard Spahr and Cozen O'Connor: It came too late. By the time the Second Circuit overturned a lower court ruling and granted CVI a right to the Fed-held collateral, Argentina had already completed an exchange of $2.8 billion in Brady bonds. Because CVI only had a right to the collateral at the Fed if Argentina was engaged in a Brady bond exchange, CVI was out of luck, despite its appellate win. CVI was left holding a big-money judgment against Argentina-more than $200 million in CVI's case-with no foreseeable way to collect on it.
Then Argentina pushed its luck. In 2010, the country proposed another exchange for holders of the collateral-backed Brady bonds. Mindful of CVI's rights under the 2006 Second Circuit ruling, Argentina's lawyers at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton asked Manhattan federal court judge Thomas Griesa to modify CVI's attachment order to permit the $100 million Brady exchange to go forward without giving CVI a chance to snare the collateral held at the Fed. Judge Griesa, who oversees all of the litigation between Argentina and its disgruntled bondholders, agreed to the modification. But he also stayed his order so CVI could return to the Second Circuit.
On Wednesday a three-judge appellate panel once again ruled in CVI's favor. (Here's Reuters' story on the ruling; here's the 23-page opinion by Judge Gerard Lynch for a panel that also included Judges Pierre Leval and Guido Calabresi.) The Second Circuit concluded that CVI is entitled to maintain its right to attach the collateral, even if that means Argentina's $100 million Brady bond exchange will be blocked. The appeals court rejected various arguments by Cleary's Carmine Boccuzzi Jr. about the Brady bondholders' senior lien on the collateral and unilateral right to amend the original Brady exchange agreement. The judges also said Argentina's situation wasn't dire enough to justify curtailing CVI's rights.
So can CVI collect the more than $200 million it's owed via the Fed collateral? Not so fast, said M. Norman Goldberger of Ballard Spahr, who argued at the Second Circuit for CVI. If Argentina calls off the exchange and leaves the Brady bonds in place until the mature in 2023, CVI won't be able to get its hands on the collateral held at the Fed.
"I wish [the ruling] meant I'd get CVI's money right away, but it doesn't," Goldberger said. What it might mean, though, is that CVI can persuade Argentina to enter negotiations, Goldberger added. "We don't have any interest in screwing [Brady bondholders]," he said. "We want Argentina to talk to us, and they won't.We weren't in this for leverage. We're just playing by the rules."
(Reporting by Alison Frankel)

U.S. walks dangerous line to support Argentina in bond cases // sehr lesenswert zu 2. pari passu runde in NY

U.S. walks dangerous line to support Argentina in bond cases

4/9/2012COMMENTS (0)

Distressed debt investors don't have much credence as victims. These are, after all, hedge funds that buy up bonds in or near default, typically at a steep discount, in the hope they'll be able to boost the value of the debt through the bankruptcy process or litigation in U.S. courts. Right now, for instance, distressed bond funds are preparing for battle over billions of dollars worth of Greek sovereign debt that they snatched up in anticipation of that country's default in March. Distressed debt funds quite literally feed off the flesh of moribund companies and foreign economies, which is why they're frequently called vulture funds. Vultures flanked by crafty lawyers aren't entitled to a whole lot of sympathy.
But they earned some from me when I read the Justice Department's new amicus brief, filed last week at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in the long-running battle between The Republic of Argentina and NML Capital, Aurelius, and other holders of defaulted Argentine bonds. The brief suggests that the Justice Department believes the foreign policy objectives of the executive branch trump the obligations of a foreign sovereign to comply with U.S. court directives. That's an argument the government clearly feels conflicted about, based on the brief. And its support of Argentina, at the expense of the power of the U.S. court system, could roil the vulture-dominated secondary market for distressed sovereign debt in the midst of the Eurozone crisis.
Usually, the United States wouldn't get involved in a dispute over contract interpretation, which is at the heart of the cases at the 2nd Circuit. But the Justice Department believes Argentina's appeal implicates a "cornerstone" foreign economic policy. Last December, U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa of federal court in Manhattan issued a series of orders in various bondholder cases against Argentina concluding that under the standard contract provision known as pari passu (or "equal footing"), Argentina must pay the vulture funds in full before making payments to investors who agreed to participate in two rounds of restructurings that followed Argentina's 2002 bond default. In February, Griesa issued injunctions based on those orders, which meant that Argentina could not make any payment to investors who were issued new debt in the 2005 and 2010 restructurings until it paid the holdouts everything it owes them.
Those injunctions, according to the Justice Department, are based on a misreading of pari passu precedent that endows holdout investors with too much power and interferes with the ability of sovereign nations to restructure their debt. The amicus brief, as well as Argentina's appellate brief, argued that Griesa's ruling offers investors little reason to participate in a foreign sovereign's efforts to resolve its debt crisis -- and every incentive to disrupt restructuring for their own selfish purposes. The briefs claimed that the judge disregarded the bond market's understanding of boilerplate language on the relative footing of debt holders and gave too much weight to the handful of cases cited by the vulture funds. (Argentina went so far as to assert that the trial-court judge -- who has been overseeing the Argentina bond litigation for almost a decade -- entered the injunctions merely to force Argentina to pay off the vulture funds and end the litigation.)
"The district court's interpretation of the pari passu provision could enable a single creditor to thwart the implementation of an internationally supported restructuring plan, and thereby undermine the decades of effort the United States has expended to encourage a system of cooperative resolution of sovereign debt crises," the U.S. amicus brief said.
As you might expect, the vulture funds don't think the market's understanding of pari passu clauses is as straightforward as the United States and Argentina contend. Nor is legal precedent, according to them. The bondholders haven't yet submitted their response briefs at the 2nd Circuit, but before Griesa, they pointed to a 2000 Belgian court ruling in a case involving Peruvian bonds as well as a California federal-court injunction against the Republic of Congo in a situation analogous to their case against Argentina. (Among the firms representing bondholders are Dechert and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher for NML; MoloLamken; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; andFriedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman for Aurelius; and Milberg for individual investors.)
More fundamentally, the holdout bondholders say that Argentina is engaged in unprecedented disregard for U.S. court judgments. There hasn't been a final judgment entered on the $1.2 billion at issue in the cases now at the 2nd Circuit, although the bondholders have won summary rulings on Argentina's liability. They also have between $6 and $8 billion in final judgments against Argentina in related cases. Argentina has nevertheless not only refused to honor those judgments but has strenuously fought every bondholder attempt to get hold of Argentine assets in this country. For the most part, the 2nd Circuit has sided with Argentina on Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act grounds, turning back rulings that would have granted the vulture funds rights to money Argentina held at the Federal Reserve and money held in U.S. banks on behalf of Argentina's social security system. (The appeals court has affirmed two other attachments, but they add up to less than $100 million.)
Argentina has been so recalcitrant about owning up to its obligations that last month Griesa explicitly chided the foreign sovereign, even though he denied another creative attachment motion by the vulture funds. "This is yet another situation growing out of the Republic's continued intransigence in failing to honor its lawful judgment debts," the judge wrote. "The plaintiffs in these cases, in seeking to vindicate their legal rights, are not able to do so by any regular and clear-cut devices."

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/04_-_April/U_S__walks_dangerous_line_to_support_Argentina_in_bond_cases/

Griesa’s decision, in the end, did not go into effect, as the attorneys for the country from the firm of Cleary Gottlieb, got a hold applied while awaiting the decision of the Court of Appeals, which should rule shortly.

Telam

Obama backs Argentina in its fight against the vulture funds

Friday, April 6, 2012


The government of the United States asked the Court of Appeals of that country to reverse rulings issued by Judge Thomas Griesa in favor of a vulture fund, which ordered the country in February to pay interest on the debt bonds from the swaps of 2005 and 2010, Assistant Secretary of Finance Fabian Dall`O confirmed to Telam.


Taking the same position was the U.S. banking association, Clearing House Association,  Dall`O said, which has among its members JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citigroup New York Mellon, Deutsche Bank, and Wells Fargo, among others.


In a brief called an "Amicus Curiae", the U.S. government said that Greisa’s interpretation of a clause in the contract “could allow a lone creditor to frustrate a restructuring plan that has international support, and with that could undermine decades of efforts that the United States has made to promote a system of cooperation and resolution of the sovereign debt crisis.”
In this manner, the United States backed Argentina in its fight against the vulture funds in the courts of that country, and in particular against a decision by Judge Thomas Griesa issued on February 23 in favor of the funds NML, of Elliot, and Aurelius.


Dall`O  said that the support from the United States reaffirms that “Argentina is very calm about this process, and there is no room for doubt that the ruling of the Court of Appeals will be favorable for the country in this case.”


The official also revealed that there would be another filing before the Appeals Court, in parallel to the U.S. Justice Department, by Clearing House, “which was favorable to Argentina and does nothing more than confirm the Argentine position in the face of the appeal.” 


That banking entity is the oldest in the United States and represents the 17 largest banks in that country, which hold about half of all deposits.


Thus, he said, the U.S. Justice Department’s text “puts into evidence the contradiction of this kind of decision (by Griesa on February 23) that we are convinced that the Appeals Court will reverse.”


Griesa’s decision, in the end, did not go into effect, as the attorneys for the country from the firm of Cleary Gottlieb, got a hold applied while awaiting the decision of the Court of Appeals, which should rule shortly.
In fact, Argentina was able to make payment last March without problems on the interest for the Par bond, issued in the debt swap with creditors.


"Argentina’s payments are being made as normal,” Dall`O said. 


The U.S. Justice Department argues in the legal brief that it does not “tolerate nor excuse” Argentina from payment these creditors.


However, it said that the orders issued by Griesa are of an “inadmissible scope” and harmful to U.S. foreign relations.

April 8, 2012 8:00 pm

UK seeks repayment of Falklands era loan

By Kiran Stacey, Political Correspondent

Britain is chasing £45m of debt owed by the Argentinian government that was lent to the country’s military junta in 1979 and used, in part, to buy weapons that were later used to invade the Falkland Islands.
UK Export Finance, an arm of Vince Cable’s business department, inherited the debt after Argentina defaulted on loans to British exporters, which were underwritten by the UK government at the time.

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d194ee1c-7d6f-11e1-bfa5-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1reXzb9d1

The goods supplied by those exporters included two Lynx helicopters and two Type 42 warships, which were used in the Falklands invasion. One of the helicopters was among the first to arrive on the British territory after the initial Argentinian landing 30 years ago last week.
Debt campaigners are calling on Mr Cable to stick to his Liberal Democrat party’s official policy of cancelling debt “that was recklessly given to dictators known not to be committed to spend the loans on development”.
But a spokesman for the business department told the Financial Times: “The government has no plans to offer debt forgiveness.
“If Argentina requires further debt relief to that already agreed, it should approach the Paris Club [the intergovernmental body that agrees debt relief], which is responsible for addressing these matters on behalf of all official creditors on a multilateral basis.”

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d194ee1c-7d6f-11e1-bfa5-00144feab49a.html#axzz1reXVVkIH

es wird langsam wieder Ernst für die PBA in Zürich....aus einigen 100.000den der BUA96 droht eine neue Klage

IV. Kosten urnd Entschädigung

Ausgangsgeniäss sind die Kosten der Beklagten aufzuerlegen (§ 64 Abs. 2 ZPO). Die Beklagte ist sodann zu verpflichten,, der Beklagten eine Prozessentsehäcfi-gung zu bezahlen {§ 68 Abs. 1 2PO}.
Da die Klägerin ihr Domizil, nicht m der Schweiz hat. hat der klägerische Vertreter für seine Leistungen .keine Mehrwertsteuer abzuliefern, weshalb diese bei der Bemessung der Prozessentscliädigung nicht ZU berücksichtigen ist.

.Das Gericht erkennt:

1.     Die Beklagte wird verpflichtet der Klägerin- Fr,- 440.000,-- sowie Fr. 34'100.--verfallener Zins per 23. Oktober 2002 zuzüglich Verzugszins auf diesem Be¬trag zu 7 % %, Fi, 34*100.--verfallener Zins-per £3; Oktober 2003 zuzüglich Vereugszins auf diesem Betrag zu 7 % % sowie Verzugszim zu 7 ZA % ab 23, Oktober 2003 auf CHF 440.000 zu.zahlen.
3..    Die Kosten■ werden-cterBeklagten'auferlegt, .
4. Die Beklagte wird verpflichtet,, der Klägerin eine Prozessentschädtgung von
Fr. 35.000 zuzüglich Fr, 487:.- Weisungskosten zu bezahlen.
5. Schriftliche Mitteilung an düe Parteien je als Gerichtsuikuride-
6. " Eine Berufung gegen dieses Urieilkann innert. 1Q Tagen vorVder Zustellung
an schriftlich und im Doppef beim Bezirksgericht ■2üricli! Postfach, 8026 20-
rieh, erklärt worden

Urteilstenor vom 10. November 2006 des Bezirksgerichtes Zürich

der scan war leider nicht sehr gut, daher zerissenes ergebnis

Para Griesa, la Argentina "ya no es pobre" y puede pagarle a los buitres con reservas

07-03-1200:00 Durante la audiencia en la que ordenó el pago a los fondos, el juez de Nueva York, indagó acerca de la capacidad de pago de la Argentina. Preguntó por el nivel de reservas del BCRA y dijo que el país ya no está como en el 2001

• galería

Un análisis de LEANDRO GABIN

La disputa legal entre la Argentina y los fondos buitres está en un punto caliente. El ministro de Economía, Hernán Lorenzino, apuntó contra el mismísimo juez Thomas Griesa luego del fallo desfavorable para el país. Lo acusó directamente de haber cedido a las presiones de los fondos más recalcitrantes. Si bien el reciente fallo es uno más de los tantos que sufre el país en los tribunales de Nueva York, donde se reclaman un total de u$s 6.000 millones, lo cierto es que la pelea de fondo es mucho más compleja. Griesa, un juez que fue nominado a la Corte por el ex presidente Richard Nixon en 1972, está harto de la Argentina. En la transcripción de la audiencia del 23 de febrero, cuando ordenó que el país le pague al fondo NML Capital de Elliott y otros tantos presentes en la comparencia (se sumaron al reclamo los fondos Aurelius y Blue Angel), llamó la atención la virulencia del juez contra el bufete de abogados Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, representantes de Argentina. En una de sus palabras finales, Griesa disparó: “Cuando digo falta a la ley me refiero a la omisión deliberada, continua falta en honrar las obligaciones en los instrumentos de deuda....Aquellas se han convertido en letra muerta por la República. Bueno, no son letra muerta en esta sala”.
Según fuentes, Griesa quisiera asestarle un golpe al país. La visión del magistrado es que Argentina pidió plata, defaulteó, y por ende los acreedores tienen el derecho de percibir sus pagos. Simple como eso. Lo ofusca el hecho de que el país no haya presentado una alternativa para los bonistas que no ingresaron a los canjes del 2005 y 2010. “El tema es que la República ha estado aquí durante años diciendo que no. Ahora, usted ha hecho muy buen trabajo. Pero son siempre para evitar que los demandantes recuperen su dinero. Su firma representa a una parte que ha violado de forma flagrante sus obligaciones legales, violó flagrantemente sus obligaciones legales. Eso es lo que su empresa ha estado haciendo durante todos estos años”, disparó Griesa a los representantes de Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, acerca de los fallos contra el país que no fueron acatados. “Sería muy bueno si Cleary Gottlieb y la República Argentina pueden ayudarnos a salir de este lío. Pero yo no veo ningún movimiento por parte de la firma o de la República para hacerlo, nada de nada”, continuó Griesa.
En una parte del ida y vuelta entre Griesa y los abogados de los fondos, contra el estudio que representa al país, el juez intentó indagar incluso acerca de la capacidad de pago de la Argentina. Los fondos demanda por un total de u$s 1.300 millones al país, en todo concepto, siendo u$s 650 millones a NML. El diálogo entre Griesa y Carmine Boccuzzi, abogado por la Argentina, no tiene desperdicio:
Boccuzzi: Su Señoría, no nos tomamos a la ligera, por supuesto, y todos estamos aquí porque en el año 2001 Argentina sufrió el peor colapso económico conocido por un Estado. Argentina se vio seriamente a punto...
Griesa: Hay muchas razones, yo agradecería mucho una hoja de balance, un balance actual de la Argentina. Me imagino que hay un montón de dinero ahora. Esto no es 2001. Obviamente, si la Argentina es pobre y sólo puede pagar 300 millones en lugar de 600 millones de dólares, estaremos encantados de darles tiempo. Pero esto no es el problema. El problema no es la pobreza de la Argentina actual. ¿Lo es? ¿Es la Argentina pobre?
Boccuzzi: Argentina...
Griesa: A propósito...¿Cuántas reservas tiene la Argentina?
Boccuzzi: En el rango de los u$s 40.000 millones. Sin embargo, el dinero es necesario para defender la moneda, para que la Argentina no termine en una situación como la del año 2001.
Griesa: En otras palabras, tengo la sensación de que si la Argentina tuviera un cambio de planes y decidiera pagar a los tenedores de bonos, podría haber un plan elaborado para hacer esos pagos. Pero todavía oigo nada de usted acerca de cualquier liderazgo constructivo ni nada para sacarnos de este lío que llevamos a través de los años.
Boccuzzi: No creo que podamos descontar el enorme progreso que la Argentina ha hecho. Tenía el mayor stock de deuda en default en el mundo y ha reestructurado el 92%. Eso lleva su tiempo. El progreso lleva su tiempo. Yo no tengo nada que comunicar hoy en día como una iniciativa o una manera de resolver el resto de este problema.
Griesa: Usted nunca lo tiene...

http://www.cronista.com/contenidos/2012/03/07/noticia_0014.html