Gesamtzahl der Seitenaufrufe

Sonntag, 31. März 2013

Regarding the investment firm NML, Lorenzino explained that “they bought u$s222 millions in bonds for u$s48 millions. If the (Judge Thomas) Griesa’s ruling is accepted, that would mean a repayment of 1.380 per cent.”


Saturday, March 30, 2013

Gov't: 'We'll keep on meeting debt obligations'

Argentina''''s Vice President Amado Boudou, Economy Minister Hernán Lorenzino and Deputy Economy Minister Axel Kicillof
Vice President Amado Boudou, Economy Minister Hernán Lorenzino, deputy Economy Minister Axel Kicillof and Finance Secretary Adrián Cosentino held a press conference defending Argentina’s stance at the US appeals court over the country’s dispute with “vulture funds”.
“Argentineans know what the heavy burden of the external debts means,” Boudo affirmed and detailed the policies that previous governments carried out such as the nationalization of private debts, the IMF policies or the Brady Plan.
“Those were strategies that created a true snowball that led the country to become more indebted”, the government’s second-in-command added.
“We have great expectation over the court’s ruling. It would be a judicial absurdity to block creditors’ payment of a country that is willing and has the capacity to pay,” Boudou insisted buy pointed out that “whichever the result is, Argentina will continue to meet its obligations” referring mainly to the bondholders that agreed to the debt restructuring.
Regarding the investment firm NML, Lorenzino explained that “they bought u$s222 millions in bonds for u$s48 millions. If the (Judge Thomas) Griesa’s ruling is accepted, that would mean a repayment of 1.380 per cent.”
So called “vulture funds” will have to respond in the upcoming weeks if they agree to Argentina’s proposal although private-sector analysts assume they will reject the offer leading the court to accept it or no, a verdict that is expected to be released in 1-3 months

The country’s filing of its proposed plan yesterday, one hour before a deadline set by the court weeks ago, paves the way for the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York to rule in a case in which a group of creditors, led by hedge fund Elliott Management Corp.’s NML Capital Ltd., seek to force the South American nation to pay after more than a decade of litigation.


Argentina One-Sixth Bond Offer Seen as ‘Thumbing Nose’

Argentina, which defaulted on a record $95 billion in sovereign debt in 2001, proposed giving holders of $1.3 billion of the repudiated bonds about one-sixth of what a U.S. judge has said they’re entitled to receive--a move one analyst called “thumbing its nose at the court.”
The country’s filing of its proposed plan yesterday, one hour before a deadline set by the court weeks ago, paves the way for the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York to rule in a case in which a group of creditors, led by hedge fund Elliott Management Corp.’s NML Capital Ltd., seek to force the South American nation to pay after more than a decade of litigation.
Argentina said it proposes two possibilities for bondholders to exchange their defaulted debt for new bonds. Argentine officials will submit a bill to their nation’s Congress to provide for the plan to be implemented, the government said in a 22-page letter filed in court.
“After taking the full month available to work on its response, Argentina came back last night with a proposal for exactly the same package that it had offered back in 2010,” Joe Kogan, head of emerging-market debt strategy at Scotia Capital Markets, said in a note this morning. Kogan said he expects the country’s bonds to fall tomorrow “upon news of Argentina’s continued intransigence.” He added: “The proposal itself appears intended for local Argentine consumption as the government seeks to reiterate once again that it will not pay holdouts more than what Argentina gave to exchange bondholders.”

Pay Immediately

A decision forcing Argentina to pay defaulted bondholders immediately would expose the nation to $43 billion in additional claims it can’t pay and trigger a new default, the government has said. With yesterday’s proposal, such a ruling by the federal appeals court in New York may come at any time.
In a press conference today in Buenos Aires, Argentine Vice President Amado Boudou said the country won’t issue more debt to repay old debt as part its proposal. Boudou said the lower U.S. court ruling it’s fighting would mean a 1,300% gain in five years for holdouts.
According to Argentina, the payment formula it’s challenging--set by a New York federal judge--would give NML Capital $720 million. That compares with an estimated value of $120.6 million for NML under one of the payment alternatives the nation is proposing, the so-called discount option.
“Argentina’s proposal accounts for past-due amounts to bring the debt current, provides for a fair return going forward, and also gives an upside in the form of annual payments if Argentina’s economy grows,” the country’s lawyers said in its letter. “The proposal fulfills the court’s dual objectives to satisfy the pari passu clause: non-discrimination in payment priority and equal treatment among bondholders.”

New Bonds

In 2005 and 2010, Argentina offered its creditors new bonds, at a deep discount. About 91 percent of bondholders agreed to the debt restructuring, or exchange.
NML and other holdouts have tried to use U.S. courts to enforce their rights under the original bond agreements.
In its letter to the appellate court yesterday, Argentina estimates that NML paid $48.7 million for the bonds in 2008.
“The formula adopted by the district court would cause great harm to the exchange bondholders while giving plaintiffs a return that is exorbitant on its face,” Argentina said.
Argentina’s top leaders previously vowed never to pay the “vulture” investors, many of which bought the distressed bonds in hopes of turning a profit. Argentina’s legislature in 2005 passed a so-called lock law barring payment on the defaulted bonds.

Par Option

Under Argentina’s proposal, a so-called par option, which is intended for small accountholders, would give bondholders new bonds due in 2038 in a nominal face amount equal to the amount of their defaulted debt, plus unpaid interest up to the end of 2001. The par bonds would pay interest that rises from 2.5 percent to 5.25 percent a year over the life of the bonds. They would also receive a one-time cash payment to compensate for interest they would have earned if the bonds had been issued on Dec. 31, 2003, according to the letter.
The holders would receive additional payments when the Argentine gross domestic product growth exceeds about 3 percent a year, the government said in the letter.
The discount option would give bondholders discount bonds due in 2033, less than the defaulted amount, with an 8.28 percent annual rate and an increase in principal over time. They would be compensated for past due interest on those bonds with new bonds due in 2017 that pay 8.75 percent annually, according to the letter.
The holders would also receive GDP-tied payments, according to the proposal.

No Better Terms

“It is our hope that the plaintiffs will finally join the 92% of creditors, accept this fair and equitable offer and put this difficult period to rest,” said Sean O’Shea, a lawyer for the exchange bondholders, in an e-mailed statement.
Argentina said its proposal wouldn’t allow the plaintiffs in the lawsuit to force it to offer payment on better terms than those received by bondholders who agreed to the restructuring.
Eugenio Bruno, an attorney at the Buenos Aires law firm Estudio Garrido, said in an e-mail that Argentina’s proposal is similar to past debt-restructuring offers by the country that have been rejected by NML and the other holdouts.
If the government were to offer a better deal, it would trigger provisions allowing holders of the exchange bonds to take advantage of more favorable terms offered to the holdouts, he said.

Former Governor

Bruno represents Alfonso Prat-Gay, a former governor of Argentina’s central bank, who submitted a brief in the case supporting his country’s effort to overturn the lower U.S. court ruling. Bruno said he also advises exchange bondholders and holdouts who aren’t involved in litigation.
In November, U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa in Manhattan said Argentina must pay the entire $1.3 billion claimed by the creditors in the lawsuit whenever it made any payment on its restructured debt. The issue was argued before the appeals court on Feb. 27 in Manhattan.
On March 1, the appellate court ordered Argentina to provide a suggested formula for paying the creditors, led by NML Capital, which refused to take the restructured bonds at a deep discount.
Argentina’s lawyer, in the Feb. 27 hearing, “appeared to propose” an alternative to the payment formula devised by Griesa, according to the appeals court. The three-judge panel gave Argentina a final chance to influence its decision.
The judges may ask for a response from the creditors to yesterday’s filing or come to a decision without one.

Court’s Requirements

The appellate judges said Argentina must tell them how and when it proposes to make current its payments on the defaulted bonds and the rate it proposes to pay. The panel also sought assurances that Argentina’s government would take the necessary actions to make the payments.
In a related case, the U.S. Court of Appeals said March 26 that it won’t grant a full-court reconsideration of an earlier ruling. In that decision, a three-judge panel barred Argentina from treating restructured-debt holders more favorably than holders of the repudiated debt.
Joshua Rosner, an analyst at Graham Fisher & Co., said in an e-mailed note this morning that Argentina’s last minute proposal in the current appeal amounted to the South American nation “ignoring (even thumbing its nose at)” the court.
The lower court case is NML Capital Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 08-06978, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). The appeal is NML Capital Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 12-00105, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York).
To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Van Voris in the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York atrvanvoris@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net

Argentina sticks to its guns over holdout creditor payments



March 30, 2013 1:30 pm

Argentina sticks to its guns over holdout creditor payments

Cristina Fernandez©Reuters
In a filing to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal late on Friday, after being ordered to spell out its offer to holdout creditors, Argentina argued that its offer nonetheless represented “substantial” returns considering the low price that funds it slams as “vultures” paid to snap up the bonds after Argentina’s default on nearly $100bn in 2001.

More

ON THIS TOPIC

IN EMERGING MARKETS

Elliott, a US fund, is leading the holdout charge and has pursued Argentine assets around the globe for years, most recently getting an Argentine navy ship detained in Ghana for 78 days.
The legal fight that has made waves through international financial circles amid fears Argentina could plunge into a messy technical default or that sovereign restructurings could become far harder in future.
In its filing, Argentina said it could offer a par bond, aimed at retail holdouts, which would pay out in full but not until 2038. For institutional investors, it offered a discount bond, payable in 2033 but with an estimated 66 per cent writedown or haircut.
Both options came with warrants linked to GDP growth, and past-due interest would be paid in cash in the par option and via a bond due in 2017 for the discount offer.
“There is no imaginable way the court could be expected to accept this. None. Especially given the 66 per cent discount offered,” said Joshua Rosner, managing director at research firm Graham Fisher.
Argentina was last year ordered by New York Judge Thomas Griesa to pay $1.33bn to creditors led by Elliott because Argentina had violated the pari passu, or equal treatment, clause in its bonds.
He gave the order teeth by ordering Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM), the trustee of restructured bonds, not to transfer funds unless holdouts were also paid. The Second Circuit is now reviewing those issues.
Given Argentina’s oft stated opposition to paying holdouts whose years-long crusade to collect in full it considers immoral, many believe Argentina will try to pay exchange bondholders outside New York if the court upholds the restraints on BNYM. But that is a complex and possibly impossible plan, meaning Argentina could tumble into technical default.
If the court rules against it, Argentina, which has had other rehearing attempts dashed, may find its only hope left lies with the US Supreme Court.
“The best that can happen is that they can try to stave off technical default until the Supreme Court decides whether it will hear the case,” Mr Rosner said. If, at that time, the Supreme Court doesn’t agree to hear it, it’s an almost immediate technical default.”
Eugenio Bruno, an Argentine lawyer and debt specialist at Garrido, who is advising exchange bondholders, investment banks and holdouts that want an exchange, said the court’s demand for Argentina to spell out its offer after a lengthy hearing in February was “always a lost cause”.
“Of course it’s totally insufficient [for holdouts]. That was never in discussion. But they couldn’t do anything else with no firm sentence against it,” he said.
Argentina is bound by its so-called “lock law” not to make a better offer to holdouts and a clause in the bonds issued in the swaps mean that any voluntary offer made before December 31, 2014 would have to be made to exchange bondholders too. Argentina restructured more than 92 per cent of its defaulted debt in the swaps, in 2005 and 2010 and, with central bank reserves of $40.6bn, could not afford a series of me-too claims.
The court now has to decide whether or not to impose the cram-down on holdouts that Argentina is seeking or stick to the letter of the bond contracts. Argentina said in its filing that Judge Griesa’s proposed solution “would cause great harm to the exchange bondholders while giving plaintiffs a return that is exorbitant on its face, and even more so when one takes into account the estimated purchase price of the majority of plaintiffs’ debt.
It added: “For example, for [Elliott affiliate] NML, which purchased its beneficial interest in the bonds for $48.7 million, the rate of return would be 80.2% per annum, and 1,380% in total.”
Argentina acknowledges it is the court it must convince, not the holdouts, who did not comment on the offer immediately but were expected to dismiss it. The ball is now back in the Second Circuit’s court.

Samstag, 30. März 2013

Argentina’s desperate exchange proposal


Argentina’s desperate exchange proposal


ARGENTINA’S DESPERATE EXCHANGE PROPOSAL

By Felix Salmon
  
 MARCH 30, 2013
Argentina has done as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ordered, and has now formally put forward its proposal for paying off Elliott Associates and the other bondholders suing it in New York court.
You could be excused for not entirely understanding what Argentina is proposing, in this 22-page filing: it’s not particularly easy to understand. But the upshot is simple, and pretty much as everybody expected: Argentina is offering to give Elliott pretty much exactly the same deal as it gave all the other holders of its defaulted bonds. In practice, that means that Elliott would swap into new Discount bonds with a present market value of roughly $120 million; if settling the case in that way helped Argentina’s bonds to rally back to where they were trading in October, then the market value would rise to about $176 million.
Argentina is at pains to point out that “this proposal is a voluntary option”: they’re not proposing that the court force Elliott to accept the deal. But at the same time, Argentina knows full well that the chances of Elliott voluntarily accepting this deal are exactly zero. Elliott is suing for a total of $720 million, and while it might be willing to settle at a modest discount to that sum, there’s no way it’s going to accept the same kind of 70% haircut that it has consistently rejected all along.
Indeed, it’s entirely improbable that any of the current plaintiffs, having rejected two previous exchange offers and having spent many millions of dollars in legal fees, would be remotely inclined to accept this offer were it put to them. Which makes it really hard for the court to accept this proposal as a good-faith attempt to pay the plaintiffs what they’re owed.
The court specifically asked Argentina how it was going to make current the obligations of theoriginal bonds; and/or how it might repay those original obligations going forwards. Argentina, in response, has proposed doing neither. Instead, it is proposing to give the plaintiffs the 70% haircut, on those original bonds, which they have consistently rejected.
The AP’s Michael Warren says that Argentina’s proposal is “creative”, but I don’t see much evidence of creativity here: instead, I see a lot of the failed rhetoric which helped bring Argentina to this fraught position in the first place. “Plaintiffs cannot use the pari passu clause,” writes Argentina’s lawyer, Jonathan Blackman, “to compel payment on terms better than those received by the vast majority of creditors who experienced precisely the same default as plaintiffs”. But of course they can do that, or at least they’re trying to, and so far, New York’s courts have ruled quite consistently that they have every right to do so.
There are signs of real desperation in Argentina’s filing: it spends a lot of time, for instance, talking about the price at which Elliott bought its debt, and the profit that Elliott would make if it got the full $720 million it’s asking for. It’s an incredibly weak argument: for one thing, there’s no law against making money in the markets, and for another, it ignores all the judgment debt that Elliott holds, and isn’t getting paid on, and isn’t litigating in this case.
Indeed, it’s far from obvious whether Argentina is extending this offer to judgment creditors, who make up the vast majority of the country’s holdouts. But one thing is clear: everything in this filing is entirely consistent with the behavior which has already been found to be “contumacious”. Argentina is a sovereign nation, and it’s staring down the court, here, daring it to go through with its dangerous plan. And frankly it’s very hard to imagine that at this point, because of this filing, the court is finally going to blink.
I’ve been largely sympathetic to Argentina’s position in this case all along, but in the wake of the various rulings which have already been handed down, Argentina doesn’t really have a legal leg to stand on any more. That’s why it’s resorting to desperate measures like saying that Elliott is going to make an unconscionable amount of money if it wins: where legal reasoning has failed, all that’s left is an attempt to bypass the law and attempt to scramble onto the moral high ground. The problem, of course, is that it’s really hard for the contumacious Argentines to occupy any kind of moral high ground at all, even when their opponent is a notorious vulture fund.
As far as I know, Argentina has not hired any kind of bankers to run this proposed exchange offer. Which is further evidence, if any were needed, that it will never see the light of day. You’ve heard of giving someone an offer they can’t refuse: this is an offer the plaintiffs can’t accept, and Argentina knows it. I find it extremely hard to believe that the New York courts, having come as far as they have, will consider it a remotely adequate remedy.

Argentina puts forward alternative payment plan in bond dispute


Argentina puts forward alternative payment plan in bond dispute

Argentina offers alternative payment formula to a US appeals court
Argentina is pitching an alternative payment formula to a US appeals court that would allow it to resolve litigation with creditors holding defaulted bonds for which they are demanding to be paid $1.33 billion.
In a filing late on Friday with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, Argentina proposed to pay creditors who did not participate in two restructurings through a choice of bonds equal to the debt's value at the time of the country's 2002 default, or through discount bonds.
The offer was under the same terms as those offered to creditors during a 2010 debt swap, a deal already rejected by the holdouts, who are seeking full payment immediately.
"The Republic is prepared to fulfill the terms of this proposal promptly upon Order by the Court by submitting a bill to Congress that ensures its timely implementation," Jonathan Blackman, Argentina's US lawyer, wrote.
The filing was the latest development in the long-running litigation spilling out of Argentina's $100 billion sovereign debt default in 2002. Around 92 percent of its bonds were restructured in 2005 and 2010, with bondholders receiving 25 cents to 29 cents on the dollar.
But holdouts led by Elliott Management affiliate NML Capital Ltd and Aurelius Capital Management have fought for years for full payment. Argentina calls these funds "vultures."
In October, the 2nd Circuit upheld a trial judge's ruling by finding Argentina had violated a so-called pari passu clause in its bond documents requiring it to treat creditors equally.
US District Judge Thomas Griesa in Manhattan subsequently ordered Argentina in November to pay the $1.33 billion owed to the bondholders into an escrow account by the time of its next interest payment to holders of the exchanged debt.
The 2nd Circuit heard an appeal of that order on February 27. Two days later, it directed Argentina to provide details of "the precise terms of any alternative payment formula and schedule to which it is prepared to commit."
In its 22-page submission late on Friday, Argentina said that under what it calls the "Par" bond option, the bondholders would receive bonds due in 2038 with the same nominal face value of their current bonds. The Par bonds would pay interest at a rate that rises from 2.5 percent to 5.25 per annum over the life of the bonds, Argentina said.
The plaintiffs would also receive an immediate cash payment of past due interest, Argentina said. And they would receive derivative instruments that provide payments when the country's gross domestic product exceeds 3 percent a year.
The holdouts could receive discount bonds due in 2033 that pay at higher rates than the Par bonds, 8.28 percent annually. They would also increase in principal over time.
The holdouts would also receive past due interest in the form of bonds due in 2017 paying 8.75 percent a year, and GDP-linked derivative units.
The Par option is restricted to small investors wanting to tender up to $50,000 per series of bonds, the filing said, while there is no limit on the discount option.
Blackman, Argentina's lawyer, wrote that the proposal, unlike what he called the "100 cents on the dollar immediately" formula Griesa adopted, "is consistent with the pari passu clause, longstanding principles of equity, and the Republic's capacity to pay."
Argentina argued its proposal meant "substantial" benefit for the holdouts. NML, which it said paid an estimated $48.7 million in 2008 for its stake in the bonds, could net $186.82 million through the discount option.
That compares to the $720 million total it claims in litigation, Argentina said.
Argentine legal expert Eugenio Bruno said the government's Friday proposal "was within expectations, considering the legal constraints on offering anything better than the terms of the 2010 restructuring."
Argentina has a "padlock law" that keeps governments from improving the terms of previous restructurings.
Earlier in the week, the holdouts scored a victory over Argentina when the 2nd Circuit denied a full court review of its October ruling on the equal treatment provision.
The United States had backed Argentina in seeking the review, contending the 2nd Circuit's decision ran "counter to longstanding U.S. efforts to promote orderly restructuring of sovereign debt.
A NML spokesman did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment late on Friday, while a spokeswoman for Aurelius had no immediate comment.
The case is NML Capital Ltd et al v. Republic of Argentina, 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-105.

Argentina Offers One-Sixth of Court-Ordered Bond Payment


Argentina Offers One-Sixth of Court-Ordered Bond Payment

Argentina, which defaulted on a record $95 billion in sovereign debt in 2001, proposed giving holders of $1.3 billion of the repudiated bonds about one-sixth of what a New York judge has said they’re entitled to receive.
The country’s filing of the proposed plan yesterday, less than an hour before a midnight deadline, paves the way for the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York to rule in a case in which a group of creditors, led by Elliott Management Corp.’s NML Capital Ltd., seeks to force the South American nation to pay after more than a decade of legal fighting.
Argentina said it proposes two possibilities for bondholders to exchange their defaulted debt for new bonds. Argentine officials will submit a bill to their nation’s Congress to provide for the plan to be implemented, the government said in a 22-page letter filed in court.
“Argentina’s proposal accounts for past-due amounts to bring the debt current, provides for a fair return going forward, and also gives an upside in the form of annual payments if Argentina’s economy grows,” the country’s lawyers said in the letter. “The proposal fulfills the court’s dual objectives to satisfy the pari passu clause: non-discrimination in payment priority and equal treatment among bondholders.”

NML Recovery

According to Argentina, the payment formula set by a New York judge that the country is challenging in the appeal, would pay NML Capital $720 million. That compares with an estimated value of $120.6 million for NML under one of the payment alternatives it is proposing, the so-called discount option.
In its letter, Argentina estimates that NML paid $48.7 million for the bonds in 2008.
“The formula adopted by the district court would cause great harm to the exchange bondholders while giving plaintiffs a return that is exorbitant on its face,” Argentina said in the letter.
In 2005 and 2010, Argentina offered its creditors new bonds, at a deep discount. About 91 percent of bondholders agreed to the debt restructuring. NML and other holdouts have tried to use U.S. courts to enforce their rights under the original bond agreements.
Argentina’s top leaders previously vowed never to pay the “vulture” investors, many of which bought the distressed bonds in hopes of turning a profit. Argentina’s legislature in 2005 passed a so-called lock law barring payment on the defaulted bonds.
A decision forcing Argentina to pay defaulted bondholders immediately would expose the nation to $43 billion in additional claims it can’t pay and trigger a new default, the government has said.

Par Option

Under Argentina’s proposal, a so-called par option would give bondholders new bonds due in 2038 in a nominal face amount equal to the amount of their defaulted debt, plus unpaid interest up to the end of 2001. The par bonds would pay interest that rises from 2.5 percent to 5.25 percent a year over the life of the bonds. They would also receive a one-time cash payment to compensate for interest they would have earned if the bonds had been issued on Dec. 31, 2003, according to the letter.
The holders would receive additional payments when the Argentine gross domestic product growth exceeds about 3 percent a year, the government said in the letter.
The discount option would give bondholders discount bonds due in 2033, that would be less than the defaulted amount, with an 8.28 percent annual rate and an increase in principal over time. They would be compensated for past due interest on those bonds with new bonds due in 2017 that pay 8.75 percent annually, according to the letter.
The holders would also receive GDP-tied payments, according to the proposal.

No Better Terms

Argentina said its proposal wouldn’t allow the plaintiffs in the lawsuit to force it to offer payment on better terms than those received by bondholders who agreed to the debt restructurings.
Eugenio Bruno, an attorney at the Buenos Aires law firm Estudio Garrido, said in an e-mail that Argentina’s proposal is similar to past debt-restructuring offers by the country that have been rejected by NML and the other holdouts.
If the government were to offer a better deal, it would trigger provisions allowing holders of the exchange bonds to take advantage of more favorable terms offered to the holdouts, he said.
Bruno represents Alfonso Prat-Gay, a former governor of Argentina’s central bank, who submitted a brief in the case supporting his country’s effort to overturn the ruling. Bruno said he also advises exchange bondholders and holdouts who aren’t involved in litigation.

Court Order

In November, U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa in Manhattan said Argentina must pay the entire $1.3 billion claimed by the creditors in the lawsuit whenever it made any payment on its restructured debt. The issue was argued in front of the appeals court on Feb. 27.
On March 1, the appeals court ordered Argentina to provide a suggested formula for paying the creditors, led by NML Capital, which refused to take the restructured bonds at a deep discount.
Argentina’s lawyer, in the Feb. 27 hearing, “appeared to propose” an alternative to the payment formula devised by Griesa, according to the appeals court. The three-judge panel gave Argentina a final chance to influence its decision. The judges said they may ask the creditors to file a response before they issue a ruling.

Court’s Requirements

The judges said Argentina must tell them how and when it proposes to make current its payments on the defaulted bonds and the rate it proposes to pay. The panel also sought assurances that Argentina’s government would take the necessary actions to make the payments.
The panel said March 26 that it won’t grant a full-court reconsideration of its ruling in a related appeal. In that decision, the court barred Argentina from treating restructured- debt holders more favorably than holders of the repudiated debt.
The lower court case is NML Capital Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 08-06978, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). The appeal is NML Capital Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 12-00105, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York).
To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Van Voris in New York at rvanvoris@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net