Der Vorstand der "Master of Desaster" vom 21.6.2011 zu meinen Reklamazionen falscher steuerlicher Abrechnungen im Zuge des Argentinientausches 2010 in der widerrechtlichen Einbehaltung von über 20.000€ (der jetzt vorliegende Steuerbescheid 2010 schreibt uns die 20.000€ gut....

Der Vorstand der "Master of Desaster" vom 21.6.2011 zu meinen Reklamazionen falscher steuerlicher Abrechnungen im Zuge des Argentinientausches 2010 in der widerrechtlichen Einbehaltung von über 20.000€ (der jetzt vorliegende Steuerbescheid 2010 schreibt uns die 20.000€ gut....

Sparkasse Darmstadt, 64278 Darmstadt Der Vorstand

Herrn
Rolf Koch
Zur Eisernen Hand 25
64367 Mühltal
Telefon 06151 2816-100207
Telefax 06151 2816-109966
spk_vorstand@
sparkasse-darmstadt.de
21. Juni 2011
IM
Depot Nr. xx-nn Koch
Depot Nr. x - nnr Koch

Ihre Rückfragen zur steuerlichen Behandlung

Sehr geehrter Herr Koch,

wir beziehen uns auf den bisher mit Ihnen geführten Schriftverkehr betreffend die beiden o.g.
Wertpapierdepots Ihrer Ehefrau und Ihres Sohnes, auf denen Sie Vollmacht besitzen.
Entsprechend unserer Zusage, Ihre Einwände nochmals zu prüfen, möchten wir nunmehr
abschließend zu der Thematik Stellung beziehen.
Im Rahmen der Depotführung und insbesondere wegen einer größeren Anzahl damit
zusammenhängender Abrechnungen ist es in den vergangenen Monaten zu zahlreichen
Rückfragen bzw. Reklamationen durch Sie gekommen. Unser Haus hat alle diese Eingaben
ungeachtet des erheblichen Umfangs im Rahmen unserer Verpflichtung und unserer
Möglichkeiten erschöpfend beantwortet. Hierbei haben wir unseres Erachtens bereits mehr
geleistet, als aufgrund vertraglicher Pflichten von uns gefordert werden kann. Zur Vermeidung
von Wiederholungen vieler fachspezifischer Begrifflichkeiten verweisen wir dabei auf den
Inhalt unserer bisherigen Schreiben.
Die Beantwortung rer Anfragen erfolgte in enger Zusammenari,_it mit unserem
Wertpapierabwickl°r (Deutsche WertpapierService Bank AG - „DWP“) als fachlich zuständiger
Stelle. Wir haben I. ,en die detaillierten und fundierten Antworte der DWP-Bank zur
Verfügung gestellt und auch sämtliche Anlagen, auf welche die Antworten konkret Bezug
nahmen, ergänzend zu Ihrer Kenntnis beigefügt.
Auch nach nochmaliger Prüfung der Vorgänge durch unser Haus können wir dabei keine
offenkundigen Fehler feststellen. Unser Wertpapierabwickler hat sich nach diesem Ergebnis
bei den Wertpapierabrechnungen vollkommen korrekt verhalten. Die DWP befolgte bei den
Abrechnungen exakt die bestehenden aktuellen Vorgaben der zuständigen staatlichen Stellen.
Grundlage der Abrechnungen stellten dabei insbesondere die bekannten Veröffentlichungen
des BMF sowie die konkreten Richtlinien der Wertpapiermitteilungen (WM) dar. Andere

Alternativen hatte die DWP dabei auch nicht. Eine von Ihnen geforderte abweichende
Abrechnung ist aus diesem Grund weder darstellbar noch zulässig. Wir sehen diesbezüglich
auch keinen Handlungsspielraum, sei es durch unser Haus oder sei es durch die DWP. Wir
bitten Sie nochmals nachdrücklich, das zu akzeptieren.
Die von Ihnen geltend gemachten Vorbehalte beziehen sich letztlich immer wieder auf die
konkrete steuerliche Behandlung und sind äußerst komplizierter Natur. Ihren Einwand in den
jüngsten Schreiben, wonach es um eine - aus Ihrer Sicht offenbar eindeutig gelagerte - Frage
des materiellen Rechts geht, können wir schon deshalb nicht nachvollziehen. Leider haben
sich in der Vergangenheit steuerrechtliche Fragen immer wieder als Quelle langwieriger und
streitiger Themen der Finanzgerichtsbarkeit erwiesen. Nicht umsonst gilt das deutsche
Steuerrecht als das umfangreichste und komplexeste weltweit. Wir erheben nicht den
Anspruch, diesbezüglich sichere Vorhersagen machen zu können.
Steuerliche Beratungen oder auch nur detaillierte Erläuterungen der Steuerrechnung gehören
nicht zu unserem Pflichtenkreis. Sie können und dürfen damit von uns nicht vorgenommen
werden, unabhängig davon, dass sie außerdem die Möglichkeiten und Kapazitäten unseres
Hauses übersteigen würden. Die von uns legitim zu fordernden Pflichten haben wir bzw. die
DWP durch Einhaltung und Befolgung aller zugänglichen Vorgaben erfüllt. Mehr, insbesondere
eine abschließende und rechtssichere Garantie, dass die Finanzverwaltung die betreffenden
Abrechnungen nachträglich nicht doch anders beurteilen könnte, kann nicht verlangt werden.
Das halten wir im übrigen auch für nachvollziehbar und nicht justiziabel. Weder die DWP noch
unser Haus können mit letzter Sicherheit ausschließen, dass die Finanzverwaltung einem von
Ihnen eingelegten Widerspruch folgen könnten. Der Umkehrschluss, wir müssten deshalb
Ihrer Rechtsansicht Folge leisten, geht jedoch ebenso fehl. Denn dies wäre dann eine
Abweichung von den gegenwärtig bekannten Richtlinien und somit für niemanden
vorhersehbar.
Wir verkennen zwar nicht, dass derartiges - wenn auch äußerst selten - schon vorgekommen
ist. Dann stellt es aber gleichwohl eine Ausnahme dar, die erst ab diesem Zeitpunkt überhaupt
gemeingültig werden könnte. Dies können wir in keinem Fall nur aufgrund Ihrer abweichenden
Ansicht vorwegnehmen. Ebenso wenig kann uns daraus ein Vorwurf gemacht werden.
Bereits im Zuge Ihrer Anfragen bzw. Reklamationen vom November 2010 hatten wir deshalb
auch die Empfehli ] der DWP weitergeleitet, die Frage einer Anr rhenbarkeit fiktiver
Quellensteuer könne nur auf dem Weg der konkreten steuerliche,. Veranlagung geklärt
werden. Diesen Rat können wir auch an dieser Stelle nur wiederholen. Hingegen wäre das
Verlangen, von unserem Haus oder der DWP eine andere Abrechnung als erfolgt vorzunehmen
eine unzulässige Vorwegnahme der endgültigen Entscheidung der Finanzverwaltung zu dieser
Frage. Hierzu sind wir weder berufen noch befugt.
Hinsichtlich Ihrer jüngsten Einwände wegen der angeblich fehlerhaften Berechnung von
Einstandskursen verweisen wir nochmals auf die Ihnen bereits vorliegenden BMFRundschreiben
vom 05.05.2010 und 10.06.2010. Das BMF hat explizit zu dem
Umtauschangebot Argentinien 2010 Stellung bezogen. In den hierzu veröffentlichten

Rundschreiben wurde die steuerliche Abwicklung per Überkreuzmethode vorgeschrieben.
Nach dieser Vorgabe wurden dann auch die vorhandenen Bestände gebucht.
Im übrigen hat das BMF hierdurch im Jahr 2010 gesondert zur Anrechenbarkeit fiktiver
Quellensteuer im Rahmen des Umtauschangebots Stellung genommen. Dabei geht das BMF -
trotz entsprechender Kenntnis - nicht auf das Rundschreiben vom 22.12.2009 ein. Hieraus
kann nur der Schluss gezogen werden, dass die Stellungnahme im Jahr 2010 speziell und
abschließend war. Auch auf die daraufhin erfolgte Veröffentlichung des entsprechenden
Wortlauts in den Wertpapiermitteilungen hatten wir sie bereits mehrfach hingewiesen.
Wir können abschließend nur nochmals wiederholen, dass sich unser Wertpapierabwickler
korrekt an die gegenwärtig bekannten Vorgaben der Finanzverwaltung gehalten hat. Alles
Weitere können die betroffenen Steuerpflichtigen bei abweichenden Ansichten dann
Ihrerseits nur selbst mit der Finanzverwaltung klären.
Haben Sie bitte Verständnis dafür, dass wir angesichts des bisherigen Schriftverkehrs sowie
dieser Antwort zukünftig auf etwaige weitere gleich gelagerte Reklamationen in diesem
Zusammenhang nicht mehr tätig werden. Sehen Sie deshalb bitte von weiteren Anfragen ab
und bedenken Sie nochmals die Empfehlung, eine rechtssichere Entscheidung über die
Jahreseinkommen-Steuererklärung herbeizuführen. Das ist der hierfür konkret vorgegebene
Weg.
Sollten wir wider Erwarten auch weiterhin mit ähnlichen Anfragen und Reklamationen
konfrontiert werden, bitten wir um Verständnis, dass wir spätestens dann eine Kündigung der
betreffenden Wertpapierdepots aufgrund unserer Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen in
Betracht ziehen müssen. Wir vertreten die Auffassung, dass eine Aufrechterhaltung einer
solchen Geschäftsbeziehung unter den gegebenen Umständen dann für unser Haus nicht
mehr länger zumutbar wäre. Wir würden dies zwar bedauern, dann aber kaum noch eine
andere Handlungsmöglichkeit sehen.

Kopien dieses Schreiben haben wir auch an die Depotinhaber, Frau nn Koch und Herrn
nn Koch versendet.

Vorstand

Freundliche Grüße

Georg Sellner
Vorstandsvorsitzender

Roman Scheidel
stellv. Vorstandsvorsitzender

Anmerkung:

es ging um über 20.000€ an zu viel einbehaltener Abgeltungssteuer bzw vornthaltener fiktiver Quellensteuer im Zuge des Argy-Umtausches 2010

da die dwp-Bank diesen Blödsinn verzapft hat und viele Depots der Sparkassen und Volksbanken davon betroffen sind sollten alle Teilnehmer am Argy-Umtausch 2010 über ihre Bücher gehen....

PENSIONERS GATHER IN NEW YORK TO DECRY ARGENTINA'S FAILURE TO PAY DEBT OBLIGATIONS TO HOLDOUTS

PENSIONERS GATHER IN NEW YORK TO DECRY ARGENTINA'S FAILURE TO PAY DEBT OBLIGATIONS TO HOLDOUTS

Life Savings Wiped Out by Regime's Broken Promises

(New York, N.Y.) – January 29, 2013 – Seeking what they are owed, fifteen Argentine pensioners gathered in New York City today in a visit organized by the American Task Force Argentina to decry the Kirchner regime's refusal to honor its ongoing debt obligations and restore their life savings. Demanding fairness and standing on patriotic principle, this group of committed holdouts shared their personal stories of hardship as the "pari passu" case is being reviewed before U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Robert Raben, Executive Director of American Task Force Argentina, said: "AFTA is committed to helping make clear the suffering these pensioners have gone through due to the default. Despite efforts to broadly characterize an entire class of creditors as 'caranchos' and 'vultures,' these ordinary Argentine citizens are speaking out to receive a fair settlement from their government.  They are Argentines who invested in their country, and were never repaid.  To them, and therefore to me, it's a matter of dignity." In 2001, the Republic of Argentina announced the largest sovereign debt default in history. In the years since, Argentina has flourished, however President Cristina Kirchner's administration has done all in its power to avoid paying aggrieved bondholders around the world the billions of dollars they are owed, despite over 100 court judgments in the United States and other foreign courts awarded against the Argentine government. Argentina's intransigence affects tens of thousands of individual Argentines, Europeans and Americans who lost money on Argentine bonds when the regime defaulted in 2001.  Many of those bondholders are themselves Argentine citizens, some of whom invested their life savings or retirement funds in the securities, assuming that their government would follow the law and keep its contractual promises - which it did not.  "Despite the strength of the Argentine economy today, the government has turned a deaf ear to those of us whose who lost our life savings in the sovereign bond market," said Maria Teresa Muñoz who worked for 42 years as a bilingual secretary for a Swiss company. "We have waited for years — for me it has been more than a decade — to receive fair compensation. But none has come." Many bondholders have settled, but this group of retirees has held out for more than a decade seeking fair treatment from their government. Now their financial future rests in the hands of the New York Second Circuit Court, which will decide in the coming months whether or not Argentina will have to meet its obligations. "The failure of our government to follow the rule of law is not befitting of our great nation," explains Horacio Alberto Vazquez, who remains without a fulltime job struggling to make ends meet through part time consulting while raising two small children with his wife. "The government's broken promises have hurt me and my family.  Our case before the US courts is our only hope for justice."

About the American Task Force Argentina The American Task Force Argentina (ATFA) is an alliance of organizations united for a just and fair reconciliation of the Argentine government's 2001 debt default and subsequent restructuring. Our members work with lawmakers, the media, and other interested parties to encourage the United States government to vigorously pursue a negotiated settlement with the Argentine government in the interests of American stakeholders.

American Task Force Argentina PO Box 3197 Arlington VA 22203-0197 Unsubscribe

Daily Caller: “I am not a ‘vulture’”

Debt Coverage:

 

Daily Caller: “I am not a ‘vulture’”

 

Social Science Research Network: “The Problem of Holdout Creditors in Eurozone Sovereign Debt Restructurings”

 

Argentine Economy:

 

Reuters: “UPDATE 2-Argentina unemployment steady despite slowdown-president”

 

The Wall Street Journal: “Argentina's Black-Market Peso Slides; Stocks Little Changed”

 

Global Relations:

 

UPI: “Israel to reprimand Argentina in bombing”

 

AFP: “Jews reject Argentina-Iran deal on bombing probe”

 

The Guardian: “Falkland Islands liquid gas find commercially viable say explorers”

 

Buenos Aires Herald: “CELAC leaders support Argentine claims”

 

MercoPress: “UK wants to control South Atlantic access and resources, claims Argentina”

 

MercoPress: “Are Falkland Islanders the Mapuches of the South Atlantic?”

 

 

The Daily Caller

I am not a 'vulture'

 

Monday, January 28, 2013

 

By Maria Teresa Munoz

 

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals will soon hear arguments in a legal battle that has been described in the media as “the landmark sovereign debt default case of the century”: NML v. Argentina. The court will determine — once and for all — whether Cristina Kirchner’s government must honor its promises to “international creditors,” i.e., the institutional holdout investors. The case, it is said, will set “an important legal precedent,” upon which might rest the future of the secondary debt market.

 

These are all true statements, and speak to why this case has earned the attention of the world. But, in my kitchen in Buenos Aires — and in tens of thousands of homes across Argentina, Europe, and North America — individual holdout investors like myself also await judgment. We look forward to the day that justice will be done; that our dignity — and our savings — will be restored; that 12 years of government stonewalling will have come to an end, and with them, perhaps, the suffering of those who have been held captive to our government’s refusal to honor its obligations to its citizens.

 

 

Social Science Research Network

The Problem of Holdout Creditors in Eurozone Sovereign Debt Restructurings

 

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

 

By Lee Buchheit, Mitu Gulati and Ignacio Tirado

 

Abstract:     
The Eurozone official sector has declared that the belated restructuring of Greek bonds held by private sector creditors in 2012 was a “unique and exceptional” event, never, ever to be repeated in any other Eurozone country. Maybe so. But if this assurance proves in time to be as fragile as the official sector’s prior pronouncements on the subject of “private sector involvement” in Eurozone sovereign debt problems, any future Eurozone debt restructuring will be surely plagued by the problem of non-participating creditors --- holdouts. Indeed, it is the undisguised fear of holdouts and the prospect of a messy, Argentine-style debt restructuring in the belly of Europe that has been one of the principal motivations for the official sector’s willingness to use its taxpayer money to repay, in full and on time, all of the private sector creditors of Eurozone countries receiving bailouts (the belated Greek restructuring being the sole exception).

This article argues that a simple amendment of the Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism (the Eurozone’s new bailout facility) could immunize within the confines of the Eurozone the assets of a Eurozone country receiving ESM bailout assistance from attachment by litigious holdout creditors. By thus increasing the difficulties that holdouts would face in enforcing court judgments against a debtor country, the objective of the amendment is to deflate creditor expectations that staying out of an ESM-supported sovereign debt restructuring will lead to a preferential recovery for the holdouts. 

 

 

Reuters

UPDATE 2-Argentina unemployment steady despite slowdown-president

 

Monday, January 28, 2013

 

BUENOS AIRES, Jan 28 (Reuters) - Argentina's unemployment rate was 6.9 percent in the fourth quarter, up just slightly from a year earlier even though economic growth slowed sharply, President Cristina Fernandez said on Monday.

 

In the fourth quarter of 2011, the jobless rate was 6.7 percent, according to the INDEC statistics institute.

 

"We are nearly at the same level of record unemployment that we reached in the last quarter of 2011," Fernandez said during a live televised speech.

 

 

The Wall Street Journal

Argentina's Black-Market Peso Slides; Stocks Little Changed

 

Monday, January 28, 2013

 

By Taos Turner

 

BUENOS AIRES--Argentina's black-market peso opened the week by weakening against the U.S. dollar, continuing a trend that began last month as tourists moved en masse to buy dollars.

 

The black-market peso closed at ARS7.62 to the dollar, according to the financial daily El Cronista.

 

Argentina strictly rations the sale of dollars and other currencies, forcing many people into the black market if they really need other currencies for travel or to save.

El Cronista: “The holdouts say they cannot be obliged to enter a swap”

Lead Articles:

 

El Cronista: “The holdouts say they cannot be obliged to enter a swap”

 

Ambito Financiero: “What did the vulture funds argue and how will it affect the final result”

 

El Cronista: “In the run-up to the holdout ruling, local Law bonds are a refuge”

 

La Nacion: “Agreement with Iran to review the AMIA case”

 

OTHER NEWS ITEMS:

• The reaction in Argentina to Cristina’s announcement on Twitter of the “truth commission” with Iran on the AMIA bombing has been largely negative.  While neither the AMIA nor the DAIA have issued a statement yet, relatives of victims have told the press they are very “suspicious” and angered, one calling it  “a monumental step backwards for Argentine justice.”  The opposition has been universally negative and condemned the agreement.  Alberto Fernandez said it was “not progress, it’s a retreat that represents an enormous weakening of our sovereignty.”  “An inexplicable cessation of sovereignty,” writes columnist Joaquin Morales Sola in La Nacion, “the news deserved something more than a few phrases from the President on Twitter … Why not a press conference with her or her foreign minister?  Did the two of them fear the precise and clarifying questions that could be posed by journalists?”  Federico Pinedo of PRO: “It’s not serious to announce an agreement over the mass murder of Argentines over Twitter.”  “The Argentine government denies, ignores and underestimates Argentine justice,” said Dep. Patricia Bullrich.  “The President is brutally confused about sovereignty and Argentine justice,” said dissident Peronist Dep. Gustavo Ferrari.
• Hector Timerman, returning from Ethiopia, will meet tomorrow with families of the victims to discuss the document, and it will be submitted for approval in Congress.
• At the Santiago summit of CELAC-EU, Argentina and Venezuela managed to water down the final communique to ensure it put forth a contradictory concept of a  European – Latin American free trade agreement that avoided protectionism but also took into serious account the imbalances in development.
• El Cronista reports that Morgan Stanley issued a report which predicts that Argentina’s Central Bank reserves will fall 21% this year, weakening the country’s solvency.  Bank of America, however, estimated a drop of only 6.7%.  Credit Suisse predicts a rise based on a lighter debt payment burden and a better trade surplus.

 

 

TRENDING TOPICS/ARGENTINA on Twitter:

• “Argentina e Iran”, “AMIA” and “Iran” are trending in this morning’s top 10.

 

 

El Cronista

The holdouts say they cannot be obliged to enter a swap

They responded thusly before the New York court to Argentina’s proposal to reopen the restructuring.  They insist on collecting at once.  The government responds on Friday.

 

Monday, January 28, 2013

 

ESTEBAN RAFELE Buenos Aires

 

The funds with Argentine bonds in default which are suing the government insisted before the Court of Appeals on their intention to collect 100% of their warrants in just one payment and rejected entering into an eventual reopening of the swap, in two briefs filed at the Court of Appeals early Saturday morning.

 

In response to the Argentine intention to reopen the debt restructuring on 2010 terms if the New York courts allow them, the funds NML Capital and Aurelius replied that they cannot be obliged to enter a swap because the bonds in default do not contain collective action clauses.  These state, for example, that with an acceptance for restructuring by 75% of the bondholders, the rest end up being included in the operation.

 

This is the main argument with which the “vulture funds” rejected both the possibility of entering the swap as well as the Argentine argument – also argued by the United States – that the ruling from lower court Judge Thomas Greisa, if upheld, puts at risk the entire financial system.  Greisa had obliged payment to the holdouts US$1.3 billion on their bonds and that financial agents that participate in the operation to retain that sum from the payments of restructured debt.  According to the plaintiffs, the current debt emissions possess sovereign collective action clauses which precisely avoid judicial complaints on the part of holdouts.

 

“Argentina argues that because 92% of the holders of bonds accepted the exchange it its two versions (2005 and 2010), the rest of the bondholders must now be forced to accept the historically unfavorable swap of 2010,” argued NML Capital and Aurelius.  “But, as this court has explained, because (the bonds) don’t contain collective action clauses, Argentina has no right to force (the plaintiffs) to accept a restructuring, even if it was approved by a super majority,” they continued.

 

“Some 99% of sovereign bonds under New York law today have collective action clauses, which require an acceptance of 75% and up,” said attorney Eugenio Bruno, expert from the Garrido firm.  The “vulture” funds said that Argentina cannot show in what manner the ruling would harm future restructurings.

 

Also, the plaintiffs rejected that a ruling in their favor would set off lawsuits from bondholders that accepted the exchange.

 

The funds recalled that the Court of Appeals had already ruled in favor of the clause of pari passu, or equal treatment, by which the holdouts must receive payments for their bonds in default.  And they had asked Greisa to define how much and how they should be paid.  The judge called for 100% payment in cash.  Another option that the court handled (and which it sent back for debate among the litigants) was equivalent payments to those that the bondholders receive who accepted the swap.  Thus, if they collect 100,000 dollars and that amount corresponds to 1% of principal plus interest, the vultures could collect 1% of their bonds plus interest.

 

“This brief will oblige the government to reply point for point in a solid manner to counter any of these arguments,” Garrido said.

 

Argentina must respond by Friday the 1^st, according to the schedule that the court imposed, in the face of the February 27 hearing.  The government believes that the “vulture” funds used the same arguments in previous briefs and that they emphasized the need to use intermediaries (financial agents that are participating in the payments) to oblige Argentina to pay.

 

 

Ambito Financiero

What did the vulture funds argue and how will it affect the final result?

 

Monday, January 28, 2013

 

By: Eugenio A. Bruno, Attorney

 

The speculative fund plaintiffs led by Elliott ratified that they aim to collect 100% of principal and interest owed since the default of 2001 and that comes to approximately US$1.4 billion according to the lower court rulings from Judge Thomas Griesa, upheld by the Court of Appeals in its sentence of October 26.  They filed two briefs, one relative to the payment formula and how much and in what way they aim to collect.  This brief was legally led by Elliott.  And the other, led by the Aurelius fund, related to the appeal of the injunction on Bank of New York.  In this article and by questions of space, we will refer to the brief about the main aims, signed by Elliott.  In a separate piece, we will analyze the brief related to Bank of New York and how it could affect the payment process for the performing bonds.

 

In the Elliott brief there is a review of said sentences and they express new considerations in rejecting the positions of the Argentine government and its amici, filed in recent weeks.  They continue with their beliefs about Argentina’s non-compliance and argue that the government is trying to “re-litigate” aspects that, in their understanding, are already “judicata” and that are not part of the issues under present judicial consideration.  They specify that all that is under litigation in this process are the two aspects about which the Court of Appeals had asked for greater precision from Griesa: the determination of the payment formula in relation to his decision on the violation of the pari passu clause and the extension of the injunction on payments that Argentina makes on exchange bonds upon the Bank of New York and other participating agents in the payment chain.

 

Violation of pari passu

 

In first place, they cite the appellate court, which in its ruling said that “Argentina has not honored its obligations because it has put its payment obligations to one creditor below those of others.”  This is the effect of the so called “lock law” which would mean a violation of the traditional interpretation of the pari passu clause.  But, also, the Court of Appeals also uses a new argument, which is that the two debts must be paid when they come due, which is to say, what is known as broad pari passu.  Then, they use both interpretations to penalize the country.

 

Payment formula

 

With respect to the payment formula, they cite Griesa’s ruling of November 21 in which 100% payment was determined, in one sum, and they upheld that this is the criteria that should predominate.  “By the judgment of Griesa – who interpreted the payment formula in his November 21 ruling – the payment of 1% phased in over 100 is a radical decision contrary to equal payment,” says the brief.  Of the readings made by the appellate court in its October 26 ruling (100% payment at once or in installments), Griesa and the plaintiffs found that the first should be applied.  But, also, the brief says that on this point, Argentina presented not a single proposal on the determination of the payment formula.  “In turn, it tried to re-discuss the existence of the remedy of equal treatment in payment which is already resolved by the appellate court,” they allege.

 

Voluntary swaps

 

Among the aspects that they ask to be rejected is the mention of the swap made by the government, as “that would impose an obligatory haircut on the holders that rejected it.  This would not be a clarification of the payment formula, but a reversal of the equal payment that the sentence orders, because the terms and conditions of the bonds do not include collective action clauses (under which the holders that do not enter the swaps must accept the decision of the majority).  Argentina has no right to force the holders to accept a restructuring.”

 

Absence of injustice

 

The brief also says that there is no injustice in some creditors collecting more than others. “The holders of the exchanged bonds knew of the existence of this litigation and that through it they could collect the totality of their claim and even attach payments destined for them.  This was written in the prospectus of the swaps.”  For that, they believe that by accepting the exchange there are two distinct debts, some with haircuts and others without, with different amounts that Argentina must repay.

 

Central Bank reserves

 

The plaintiffs also confirmed that Argentina has sufficient reserves to face the sentence.  They also write: “It’s difficult to believe that with more than US$40 billion in reserves, Argentina would still risk a second default in less than 11 years and the acceleration of bonds for billions of dollars to avoid paying an amount of US$1.4 billion.  So, if Argentina chooses this path, it is responsible for the damage that is done to the exchange bondholders.”

 

“As the Court of Appeals has already said, the sovereign debt market has included collective action clauses in the vast majority of its bonds emitted under New York law, which effectively eliminate the possibility of holdout litigation,” says the brief in relation to this point.  They also allege that the stability and credibility of New York depends on honoring the terms and conditions of bonds issued there.  Otherwise, Argentina – the brief says -, a sovereign country, could restructure part of its debt and then repudiate the rest.

 

Lawsuits for exchange bondholders

 

Elliott also refers to the argument that if Argentina pays the sentences, the holders of exchange bonds will sue to demand the same conditions.  They allege that this argument “is a groundless hyperbole.”  

 

 

El Cronista

In the run-up to the holdout ruling, local Law bonds are a refuge
The investors are taking up new bonds under Argentine law or seeking coverage for those issued in the US, given the volatility generated in the weeks running up to and after February 27, when the final arguments will be presented. They are going for Boden 15 and Bonar X. And they are getting rid of Global 17 or buying up Par with CDS protection.

 

Monday, January 28, 2013

 

By VERONICA DALTO Buenos Aires

 

The holdouts presented on Friday their arguments before the Appellate Court of New York and one more step was taken within the timetable of presentations to be closed next February 27 in the lawsuit between Argentina and the default bondholders, which is scaring off investors in the of bonds under New York law or is obliging them to seek coverage to handle the volatility which will lash these bonds in the coming weeks.

“Between the public papers, one month before the key hearing at the Appellate Court in NY, the trend for greater strength of the bonds under local legislation compared with foreign law ones, something which could become exacerbated given that the will and capacity to pay of the country at the end of the day continues to be the same,” said the economist Gustavo Ver in his stock exchange report.

The preference of investors may be observed in the mid-point of the dollar curve, where the Global 2017, (NY law) yields some 140 base points over the Bonar 2017, explained Ver.

The creditors` presentation, led by Elliott Management and Aurelius Capital, together with that to be made by Argentina on February 1 next, will lead to the ruling for or against the payment formula, as well as for or against the application of the sentence of the Bank of New York ordered by the ruling of the first instance judge Thomas Griesa for some 1.3 billion dollars.

The decision could go either way, which is what makes the investments in Argentine bonds very speculative. “Argentina is not a place to put your money at this moment,” said sources from the Bank of America Merril Lynch (BoAML) to El Cronista. Their recommendations are for those who “have to be invested in Argentina”.

They recommend short-term peso bonds (Boden 2015 and Bonar X) and a combination of bonds in long-term dollars (like the Par) protected by Credit Default Swaps (CDS). “The Par are listed near their recovery value and the combination with protection is a strategy that pays off well”, they explained. “If Argentina wins the case, the bond yields more than what you lose in protection. And if it loses, the CDS yields more than you lose by the default on the bond.”

“Our vision is conservative and favors bonds in pesos, but looking at them every day. We will change our recommendations on the basis of the updates provided by counsel,” explained experts from the organism who expect to see a high amount of volatility for the coming months, especially in the weeks preceding and subsequent to the final statements of February 27.

The consultancy Elypsis also advises staying away from the holdout risk in February, according to its latest report, as it expects a downturn in the temporary premium of bonds under New York Law.

“We shall continue to avoid this jurisdiction, not because we are concerned about a default—not even a technical one—but because the flow of news will probably continue to be negative for these instruments,” they said. This is based on the fact that the NY premium (the difference between the yield of the national law bond and the foreign law bond) has set foot on adverse soil, given the uncertainty of the ruling and the consequent strategy of the Argentine Government. Meanwhile, the 5 year CDS, reflects a probability of technical default, which the consultancy deems unlikely but which shows itself to be resistant. It recommended dollar-linked bonds for those whose pesos are stuck in the country, in line with the expectations concerning devaluation.  

 

indikative Preise der defaulten USD-Bonds von Argentina

BOND ISIN  

G2008 US040114GF14  

G2018 US040114GG96  

G2027 US040114AV28  

G2031 US040114GH79

Werter Herr Koch

 

Danke für die Nachricht.

 

Der Handel hat mir mitgeteilt, dass sich die indikativen Preise zwischen 48 und 50 bewegen und die Volumen bei ca. 1 Mio. zu stehen kommen - aber wie gesagt, auf indikativer Basis.

 

Mit den besten Grüssen

Im Wiebel-Forum brüstet sich ein Anwalt damit zu pari passu eine innovative Klage erstmals einzubringen

Im Wiebel-Forum brüstet sich ein Anwalt damit zu pari passu eine innovative Klage erstmals einzubringen

Nächste Woche wird PPC Klage eingereicht

---

[ Antworten ] [ Ihre Antwort ] [ Forum www.b-wiebel.de ]

---

Abgeschickt von jack am 25 Januar, 2013 um 15:26:04:
Dies wird die erste Klage dieser Art in der BRD sein, die in Anlehnung an das Verfahren in den USA direkt auf gleichrangige Bedienung der Altbonds entsprechend der Pari passu Klausel in den ANleihebedingungen der Altbonds gerichtet ist. Und das unter Einbeziehung von corresponding banks, Zahlstellen und Treuhänder.
Damit wird absolutes juristisches Neuland betreten.

http://www.b-wiebel.de/forum/messages/26307.html


Eine andere Anwältin (D. L.) mit der ich seit 10 Jahren immer wieder in Kontakt stehe hat eine solche Klage bereits Dez 2012 in Ffm platziert. Bei der Vorbereitung dieser Klage konnte ich sehr viele Tipps, Anregungenundauch Dokumente geben.

Es ist also völlig unwahr womit sich dieser Anwalt im Wiebel berühmt. Mein eindruck ist, dieser anwalt ist im Wiebel auf "Mandanten-Lagd".


Ich habe bereits vor 8 Jahren diese Überlegungen zu Papier gebracht und veröffentlicht.

http://www.argentinien-klage.org/pari-passu-diskussion/pari-passu-clause-v-42.pdf

Eine PPC Klage habe ich bereits im März 2006 eingereicht und veröffentlicht.

http://www.abdreco.de/materialien/ppc-feststellungsklg.pdf

Und die entsprechende Untersuchung über die AltAnleihen und Umschuldungsanleihe mit Pfändungsoptionen auf über 60 Seiten habe ich bereits im September 2005 veröffentlicht.

http://www.rolfjkoch.net/golive-web-site-second/argentina/arg-pdf-files/clearstreambanking/pfaendungsmoeglichkeiten-v-1.pdf

and on February 27 there will be an oral hearing where both parties will formulate their final arguments. From that date the Court of Appeals will take its time to issue its definitive sentence on the litigation that could endanger the normal payment of Argentine debt.

El Cronista

Vulture funds today will reject Argentine offer to reopen the debt swap

They will rule out the plan to reopen the swap and will insist on 100% payment of the principal owed.  The Argentine government will respond with a brief within one week

 

Friday, January 25, 2013

 

The vulture funds that have unpaid Argentine debt bonds and who are litigating in the United States will present their side today before the Court of Appeals in New York, to argue for the demand of a single payment of US$1.3 billion in case.  They will reject any possibility of reopening the swap, because that implies a haircut of 65% on their holdings.

 

The funds Elliott Management and Aurelius Capital obtained a first favorable sentence in their request on the part of Judge Thomas Griesa, which the Court of Appeals then left suspended until the underlying question is resolved, which is the possible violation by Argentina of the clause of “pari passu” (equal treatment for all creditors).  The filing today from the vulture funds corresponds to a schedule established by the appellate court, which began on December 28, 2012 when Argentina set its position and set forth the possibility of reopening the debt exchange to weaken Griesa’s ruling.

 

Next Friday, on the 1st of February, the national government will have its chance to answer the points put forth by the investors and on February 27 there will be an oral hearing where both parties will formulate their final arguments.  From that date the Court of Appeals will take its time to issue its definitive sentence on the litigation that could endanger the normal payment of Argentine debt.

 

Argentina will base its strategy on leaving open the possibility of allowing the investors that didn’t enter the swaps of 2005 and 2010 to exchange their warrants, under similar conditions.  In the final filing from Argentina it will again be proposed that the country could offer a new reopening of the exchange, for which it would be necessary to partially suspend the so-called Lock Law.

 

By imposition of this law, no operation after the swaps already help could contain more beneficial aspects than those obtained by those who did accept the trade.

 

 

Ambito Financiero

Final brief from the vulture funds today in New York

In a week it will be the Argentine government’s turn

 

Friday, January 25, 2013

 

The vulture funds, which didn’t accept entering the debt swaps and continue suing Argentina in New York, today are presenting their final brief before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in that city.  The schedule continues with the response that the Argentine government will give on February 1 and finally the hearing on February 27 from which the court will give its definitive decision.  

 

The filing by the creditors today, led by Elliott Management and Aurelius Capital, is relevant because today with the one next Friday that Argentina will make, it could begin to delineate the upholding or overturning of the payment formula and application of the sentence upon the Bank of New York according to the ruling from the lower court judge, Thomas Griesa.  That sentence ordered the payment of 100% of the bonds plus interest (around US$1.5 billion) and in cash.

 

Interpretation

 

One of the points that could be modified from the previous rulings is the interpretation of “pari passu”, which until now is harming Argentina for not having proportionately paid the holders of swapped bonds and the holdouts.

 

But the Argentine position has been backed until now by different entities, among those that consider an adverse ruling to be a complicating factor for future restructurings in other countries and would not leave a good image for the United States as an international financial center.  Among the stand out supporters from Wall Street have been the American Bankers Association, the Clearing House Association, the Federal Reserve of New York, the U.S. Treasury, Anne Krueger (ex IMF), Puente Brothers and Deputy Prat Gay.

 

The government already indicated that it would be prepared to reopen the swap, but with equal conditions from when it negotiated the debt restructurings of 2005 and 2010.

 

 

El Cronista

The government wants to leave ICSID to avoid a new battle with the creditors

Cristina Fernández will travel this weekend to Chile to participate in the summit of Latin American countries with the EU.  They will seek to separate from ICSID.

 

Friday, January 25, 2013

 

By Carlos Arbia

 

At the summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the European Union (EU), which is being held this weekend in Chile, the countries making up the South American block of UNASUR will seek to stop being subject to the decisions of the international arbitration tribunals, like the International Center for the Settlement of Investor Disputes (ICSID) which is a dependency of the World Bank, or other entities, as El Cronista reported on Monday.

 

The Argentine government will support a proposal from Ecuador at the regional level and which will be debated in this summit that will be attended by President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who will probably travel this afternoon or Saturday morning.   Also confirmed is the presence of Economy Minister Hernan Lorenzino.  The intention of the Argentine government to leave ICSID would also be to avoid another battle with the vulture funds.  It is feared that in case these funds don’t get a favorable ruling from the Court of Appeals in New York, they will go to the ICSID to file claims on their bond investments.

 

According to the view of economist Daniel Marx “it’s not so easy for the so-called vulture funds to go to the ICSID if the ruling against Argentina is negative from February 27.  But it has to be said that Argentina has 3 cases in the ICSID related to the bonds, most of them with Italian bondholders, they are 3 cases at different stages of resolution; if Argentina leaves the ICSID like Venezuela or Bolivia have announced, the countries can come and go but there is no retroactive effect.”  Marx also added that “what was put forth there follows its process, but the Italians could file because there is a treaty between Argentina and Italy, it’s not the same case with the U.S. but one cannot rule out an attempt by them to make another play to collect the US$1.33 billion that they want Argentina to pay.”  

 

On Monday, this newspaper reported that Kirchnerism will also seek this year through a law it will send to Congress to annul 59 bilateral investment treaties that establish the ICSID as the resolution forum for disputes between the Argentine state and multinationals.  This is no small thing, because Argentina currently faces 43 claims in this tribunal, in which the plaintiff companies (the last was filed by Repsol) are demanding indemnities totaling US$65 billion from the country.  And among these 43 cases there are five in which the ICSID already issued final rulings against Argentina, which the country didn’t honor.

 

Around whether Argentina can leave the ICSID to avoid some bondholders going there, economist Jorge Todesca said he doesn’t think it would be a good thing.  “It’s a very unpredictable tribunal around decisions, in any case in the majority of cases it pushes for negotiations in place of producing sanctions.  I am referring to cases in general, not only from Argentina, the same is done by World Trade Organization with the differences between countries.”