Lead Articles:
Ambito Financiero: “Government is confident that the (non-vulture) bondholders accept the offer”
El Cronista: “Blejer: "It’s illogical and impossible that Argentina pays the vulture funds”
El Cronista: “Argentine mission departs for Washington awaiting key ruling on debt”
El Cronista: “In the United States they don’t understand where Argentina wants to go”
La Nacion: “IMF is concerned with the lack of controls over ANSeS
Clarin: “A K businessman in focus: million-dollar transfers to Switzerland with the backing of the Kichners is denounced”
Telegraph: “Portugal’s elder statesman calls for 'Argentine-style' default”
Ambito Financiero
Government is confient that the (non-vulture) bondholders are accepting the offer
So say Argentina’s attorneys in New York. With three exchanges, acceptance would surpass 95%
Monday, April 15, 2013
By Carlos Burgueño
With prudence, from the Economy Ministry there is the handling of an optimistic fact: many of the bondholders suing Argentina in New York would be ready to accept the third swap of debt in default. They are various holdouts that at their time joined the lawsuit of the vulture funds Elliott and Aurelius against the country seeking to collect 100%, but the alternative of all of this extending even much longer (and without the security of collecting) made some of them begin to think now that it is time to get what they can.
This information arrived in Buenos Aires over the weekend, from the lawfirm representing Argentina, Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton. From their New York offices they let it be known that various bondholders asked their financial representatives to analyze the offer presented by the government of Cristina de Kirchner on March 29. They then made contact with the attorneys to know the technical terms of the offer and the formulas of emission of the two bonds that Argentina would present.
Arising from the conversation between the financiers and Argentina’s legal representatives was the almost certainty that there would be several holdouts that would now believe that the battle has reached its end, and for them it ended up being a bad deal betting on collecting via the judicial avenue. In some manner, according to the explanation that came from New York, arose the conviction that Argentina would not finally pay this debt, even with a ruling against it, and that the possibilities of obtaining the money through attachments are almost nil.
The interested parties would be Pablo Alberto Varela, Mirta Susana Dieguez, María Evangelina Carballo, Lila Inés Burgueño, Leandro Daniel Pomilio, Teresa Muñoz de Corral, Norma Elsa Lavorato, Carmen Irma Lavorato, César Rubén Vázquez, Norma Haydée Gines and María Azucena Vázquez. By their names, it is speculated that the majority are Argentine, or at least Latin American, and who opted at the time to join the offensive by Elliott and Aurelius in the court of Thomas Griesa. This judge accepted at the end of 2010 to accumulate all the cases of the complaints, until issuing final ruling, which came in November 2012, sanctioning Argentina to pay US$1.33 billion in cash. Then came the appeal, the “stay” from the appellate court and the current situation with the new offer now official from Argentina.
Equally, the bondholders will wait on the higher court which approximately one month after hearing the certain rejection from the two main litigants against Argentina (Elliott and Aurelius) will determine if the offer is valid or not, but only the fact of the possibility of showing interested parties before the court would be a good fact for the country’s position. At least this is what Argentina’s legal representatives in New York say.
If some of these holdouts accpt this third call to open the swap, finally the process of restructuring of the debt would surpass 95%, which now currently that percentage is at 94.3%.
To break the psychological barrier of that 95% is important, which would now end up showing that the bondholders’ position, fundamentally the bondholders, would be more than marginal. Equally these, with the alternative of a totally adverse ruling (something impossible to determine at this point), will appeal and bring the situation to a decision before the U.S. Supreme Court. Argentina will do the same if the appeals court rejects the offer to reopen the swap. But for a more favorable final position for the country, the attorneys representing the country believe that it’s important that the ruling have the dimension of a fight between a sovereign state and the vulture funds.
According to the calculations of the Economy Ministry, there would be between US$8 billion and US$10 billion still in default, of which no less than US$7 billion would be in the hands of the vulture funds and would end up being a lost cause for any presentation to normalize the debt.
It’s the money that remains in the hands of Elliott, Dart (especially these two), Olifant, Aurelius, Blue Angel and Master, among others. There would then be between US$2 billion and US$3 billion in the hands of private individuals, who if they enter the third swap would bring to 95% the percentage of acceptance of the restructuring of the Argentine debt (including the calls of 2005 and 2010), an important psychological barrier to reinforce the refusal to agree on a 100% payment to the vulture funds.
El Cronista
Blejer: "It’s illogical and impossible that Argentina pays the vulture funds”
For the ex-president of the Central Bank, Argentina must return to occupying a space in the capital markets, even though it doesn’t need it. If the state permits access to cheap money, it will allow companies to recover the investment level that today the economy doesn’t have
Monday, April 15, 2013
MARÍA ELENA CANDIA Buenos Aires
European crisis with local memories, excess liquidity in emerging countries and the questioned growth of Brazil. All these issues have a point of contact with our country, which Mario Blejer analyzed in an interview. His CV backs it up: he was president of the Central Bank in the midst of the Argentine crisis of 2002, worked for 21 years at the International Monetary Fund, held a seat on the board of the Bank of England and today is vice president of Banco Hipotecario. Internationally renown for his diagnostic bullseyes and analytical capacity, by opining around the local agenda, Blejer didn’t doubt in saying that Argentina should not pay what the vulture funds are asking for and that the country presents great challenges in terms of growth and investment. But another important and complementary challenge is that Argentina return to occupying a place in the capital markets, even though it doesn’t need to.
How does the crisis Europe and the rest of the world are living through affect us?
There is a great liquidity around the world, which is called quantitative easing. What the Fed in the United States, the Bank of England and now Japan are doing is to print much more money and buy state bonds. The interest rates are very low and we cannot take advantage of the credit markets no because of the problem of the holdouts, while our competitors can do so. On the other hand, the European crisis generated a drop in trade financing. In general 85% of pre-financing of exports is provided from there. This means that international trade has stalled and this is not good for us.
In what way do we benefit?
The way it does benefit us is in soy, which continues to have a good price. But if it falls another US$100 we will be in trouble. Above all because the state finances itself through export taxes on soy. If the price falls a lot, it will above all affect state revenues.
There are doubts about Brazil’s growth being good this year, how could that affect us?
The projection for growth this year is not bad, but neither will it overwhelm us. Low growth in Brazil has as a consequence the fall in demand for Argentine products. That which affects us more is our second most important production chain in the world, which is automobiles. If demand falls a lot – even though it now appears to be rebounding – we would have problems because this industry absorbs a great deal of jobs. There is also a question on the environment in Mercosur, if there are tense relations it is difficult to think that Argentine exporters will go to Brazil to seek new business.
Should we pay the vulture funds?
The vulture funds, especially the Elliott group, specialize in buying bonds at rockbottom prices and litigating to obtain a margin. They even try to be the only ones that demand to be paid what they ask. They had success with Jamaica and Peru, and they believe that they will have success in this case also. With 7% of the bondholders demanding payments, it because impossible to pay all because the rest will want to join them. It’s impossible to pay what they ask for, impossible and illogical. It’s a question of being able to get a favorable ruling for the country at some point.
Then you don’t agree with the ruling against Argentina.
The ruling is bad. It’s not right how the judge interprets the reference to the pari passu clause, which is that all should be paid the same. The judge interprets that all should be paid the same, but that every one be paid what the bond that they have says and that is not correct, because the vulture funds didn’t accept the swap bond, and that wouldn’t be paying equally by discriminating.
What should we expect?
The judge got tired of us and took out a ruling because he doesn’t like the way in which the case was presented and the most likely thing is that the appeals court probably won’t want to reverse it. The country could go to the Supreme Court which will not be so emotional as these judges, where it has chances. The country’s position is quite acceptable.
Is there a risk of technical default?
Yes, because the rest have to be paid and the payment mechanism could be blocked. But if Argentina is going to the Supreme Court, and it accepts that the stay be continued, then a technical default doesn’t exist.
What are the challenges that the country will have to face?
Argentina must grow a little more to solidify the positive growth that we have now. I believe that investment increase substantially for a determined period but then fell. For this year, I calculate that the level of growth will be 3%. But the country’s challenge is to go back to attracting investment. Argentina receives little foreign investment compared with the strengths it has and also has a low level of local public and private investment. Argentina has to restore a level of desirable investment.
And return to the capital markets?
The other important challenge, and while debt doesn’t need to be taken, is to sooner or later return to having a place in the international market at a time when money is cheap. If Argentina is sovereign and manages to return to the markets at a reasonable rate, companies will also be able to do it. This is complementary to the investment issue.
To return to the capital markets would alleviate the pressure on the Central Bank reserves?
When I worked at the Central Bank, we had US$12 billion in reserves. Now that we have US$40 billion, if they are used well, it doesn’t concern me. Today it’s important that the reserves stay high because we don’t have access to the capital markets. But if we arrive at having it, what would we need such high reserves for? It’s costly to have reserves.
El Cronista
Argentine mission departs for Washington awaiting key ruling on debt
Economy Minister Hernán Lorenzino and Finance Secretary Andrian Cosentino will take advantage of the occasion to visit the country’s attorneys
Monday, April 15, 2013
While they await the response from the vulture funds to the offer to pay the debt in default and, afterwards, the ruling from the Court of Appeals, the economic team is preparing to travel on Wednesday to Washington to participate in the spring meetings that are held every year by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB).
It is expected that Economy Minister Hernan Lorenzino and Finance Secretary Adrian Cosentino is taking advantage of the occasion to hold meetings with attorneys from the firm of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, which is defending Argentina in the case of the debt.
After receiving the payment offer from the government, identical to the swap of 2010, the Court of Appeals in New York gave the vulture funds until April 22 (next Monday) to respond to it. It is expected that the reply will be negative and they they will insist on their demand to collect 100% of what is owed to them. As such, Argentine authorities will have to wait for the court’s ruling. And if it is contrary to the country, Argentina will have to plan a strategy for continuing to pay it performing bonds without risk of them being attached.
In this context, Lorenzino and Cosentino will participate in the IMF and WB assembly, with various meetings on the agenda. The activity of the committee will begin on Thursday.
The agenda of the assembly will slowly begin today and will expand over the course of the week. It will include the distribution of the IMF outlook on the world economy (WEO) in which for many years that entity has never forgotten to question the INDEC’s statistics and the lack of progress in the creation of a new index.
Also, in February the organization sanctioned the country for the lack of credibility of the inflation and growth indices and applied a ‘censure motion’ and also gave a new seven month deadline – until September – by to incorporate improvements in their indicators. If Argentina doesn’t comply with that date, it will have stronger penalties.
The central axis of these spring meetings will be global economic recovery and the Eurozone crisis, which will be debated by finance ministers, central bank presidents and officials from the 188 member countries of the organizations.
The IMF director general Christine Lagarde showed last week – in a speech to the Economic Club of New York – that while the global economy has shown signs of strengthening in the last six months, “it’s not expected, howeer, that global growth will be much higher than last year.”
For its part, WB president Jim Yong Kim gave a telephone press conference in which he said that the global economy continues showing a “clear contrast’ between the contraction in the Eurozone this year and the expansion in emerging economies.
El Cronista
In the United States, they don’t understand where Argentina wants to go
Companies wants clearer rules of the game and that contracts be respected. Analysts don’t understand with which manual Cristina’s government functions
Monday, April 15, 2013
By Hernán de Goñi, assistant news director for El Cronista
In the galaxy of problems that are being reveled to the government of the United States, Argentina today is a small star. The administration of Barack Obama recognizes its contribution in sensitive issues like the international nuclear non-proliferation issue (key today in the struggle with North Korea) and its contribution to the peace forces in Haiti. But they know that there must also be progress in other areas for relations with Buenos Aires to return to being more solid. The improvement in public statistics that are put together by the INDEC is one of them. Another focus is made up of the trade controversies under dispute in the WTO.
While it’s not shown as a counter, in Washington they highlight that the State Department build a good working agenda with Brazil, a country with which there are periodic meetings. A source with access to U.S. diplomacy defined the scenario this way: the uncertainty that rules the relationship today doesn’t account so much for particular issues between the countries, but because there is no end to interpreting how Argentina wants to function in the global system of trade and investments.
The start this week of the annual assembly of the IMF will be, in that direction, a key opportunity for seeing the true Argentine willingness to cope with some of these criticisms. Also remaining to be seen are the first steps by Cecelia Nahon, the economist that replaced Jorge Arguello as ambassador, who still is not totally installed in this city.
Different sentiments coexist among U.S. businessmen. Their interlocutors acknowledge that Argentina continues being a relevant country for their companies. But many of the companies with interests in th region assumed a position of “wait and see”. One factor that reflects it is the flow of total foreign investments: the US$7 billion received by Argentina contrasts with the US$17 billion that went to Colombia.
A man that works as a liaison between the American private sector and the Capitol argues that for companies, the lack of honoring obligations in contracts is a factor that doesn’t help for new investments. When they talk of that point they aren’t so much alluding to the fight with the vulture funds, but the ignoring of the contrary sentences at the ICSID, the arbitration tribunal of the World Bank. What they want are clear rules that are not determined by the arbitrariness of one person or that must be discussed every time they are applied.
Latin America, but above all Argentina, is seated on top of resources coveted by the whole world: food and energy. For that corporate giants like Monsanto and Chevron are presenting new bets. The first of them will pay US$400 million in a new seed plant in Cordoba, while a court decision is pending to go forward. The second wants to move ahead on the exploration of oil and shale gas together with YPF, while the local rebound from a lawsuit that it suffered in Ecuador held up its plans.
The American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) in Argentina proposed, three years ago, generate a more constructive link between both countries, from the moment in which their member companies generate 38% of the taxes the country collects and 18% of GDP. The result is a relationship program that involves politicians of all orientations, members of the judicial branch and journalists, who participate – every one has a turn – in interviews with members of Congress, businessmen and local academics, destined to identify focal points that help the relationship.
The view of the analysts
In the think-tanks of Washington, there are views found on the country. Ray Walser, one of the figures at the Heritage Foundation (pillar of conservative thoughts), put the accent on the little confidence that generated actions from the government like the incident with the plane detained in Ezeiza and the Truth Commission with Iran.
At the Peterson Institute, a center dedicated to evaluating the global economy, doesn’t have a good prediction. Its reading of Argentina’s economic indicators is not good: high inflation, fall in reserves, persistent exchange rate gap, fiscal deterioration, excessive monetary expansion, are factors that don’t manage to be balanced with commodities prices (which has a downward trend).
Peter Hakim, president emeritus of the Inter-American Dialogue, translates into his judgments a trained eye to read the Argentine situation. “The clamp could resolve the lack of dollars, but doesn’t stimulate investment. Until 2007 Argentina create a gain but in place of savings continues wiith its current dangerous game. It isn’t understood what the theory is. It’s like a player that is largely winning at midnight, at 2am has half and at 3 has almost nothing, but continues playing.” “Why does Argentina believe that it hasn’t left the crisis behind?” the academic asks, for whom the reasons by which the country continues resolving its economic policy as if it was in the middle of a permanent emergency is a total intrigue.
Hakim says that Argentina today has left the U.S. radar. In that he agrees with former Republican official Roger Noriega, for whom the government of Cristina Kirchner doesn’t have a clear game.
The White House has shown itself ready to not confront, and even make helpful gestures, like the presentation of the Treasury in the lawsuit with the vulture funds. But if the country doesn’t decide to have a less oscilating relationship with the nationl that generates almost 30% of world GDP, the possible cooperation goes back to being abstract. Today, the link is virtually frozen. In Washington, the majority believe that this status could only be changed from Buenos Aires.
La Nacion
The IMF is concerned about the lack of controls of the ANSES
Monday, April 15, 2013
By Martín Kanenguiser | LA NACION
The International Monetary Fund is preparing a report on the Argentine financial system which will highlight banking liquidity but will also express its concern for the lack of long-term credit and the lack of control of the assets managed by the ANSES.
During the evaluation to prepare the report from the Financial System Assessment Program (FSAP) in March with Govenrment officials, bankers and economists, the experts from the IMF and World Bank attempted to be cooperative, notwithstanding their questions on the most sensitive issues.
Officials and private sources who met the delegation told La Nacion that one of the key concerns was the Sustainability Guarantee Fund (SGF) managed by the ANSES. This is because although the entity is the main institutional investor in the country, it is not subject to any of the controls governing other financial bodies in the management of its portfolio, which in 2012 reached AR$ 227,544 million, according to official data.
Composed of different kinds of financial assets, one of its most controversial strategies is the sales-purchase of bonds with private investors, which is carried out at interest rates higher than market ones, in discretionary form through a small number of banks. Neither is its credit policy subject to the controls that the BCRA applies to other banks.
The ANSES did not confirm to La Nación whether the IMF experts were received by Santiago López Alfaro, executive vice director of Operations of the SGF as requested. Headed up by Robert Rennhack, who is the Assistant Director of the Capital Markets Department of the IMF, the foreign officials asked about the solvency and liquidity of the financial system, but also broached the subject of the macroeconomic context which is included in the report on Argentina to be delivered to the Director of the IMF.
In particular, they asked the Central Bank and private analysts about the exchange situation, at a time where in bilateral terms with the dollar, the delays are similar to those at the end of the parity regime in 2001. They also asked about the pace of change to the questionable metropolitan consumer price index after the motion of censure passed by the Fund’s Board of Directors on the Government last February. In this sense, they considered that the new index should begin before 2014, the date when the Government had committed to make the changes.
In financial terms, their concerns were about the lack of long-term credit, inflation, the lack of reliable indexing units and the regulatory problems facing the private sector. The message they received from both foreign and national private banks according to sources, is that there is plenty of liquidity and that hitherto the official policy for managing credit has not affected its solidity. They met, among other entities, with the president of the Nación Bank, Juan Carlos Fábrega, and experts from the Santander, the Hipotecario and the Galicia.
The worry, particularly at the World Bank, arises from the lack of a deep-set development of the credit market for SMEs and mortgage loans. Central Bank experts tried to convince them of the benefits of the changes to the entities charter in this context.
At the Ministry of Economy they met with the Finance Secretariat where they learned that the Government had decided not to publish the FSAP report, unlike Brazil and Mexico among other countries. Minister Hernán Lorenzino will take part in next weekend’s twice-yearly Fund meeting in Washington.
At the National Securities Commission, they asked about the new law to reform the capital markets and displayed concern with Article 20 of this new law which allows the Commission to intervene private companies by sending in provisioners.
Clarin
A K-businessman in the cross-hairs: denouncement of millions transferred to Switzerland with Kirchner’s approval
Lázaro Baez is the target. In the TV program Periodismo Para Todos witness accounts reveal close business ties with the Kirchners. Documentation proving companies recorded in tax havens.
Monday, April 15, 2013
By Nicolás Wiñazki
The money route began where so many things have started, in Rio Gallegos, making an operational stop in Buenos Aires and going on towards bank accounts in Switzerland belonging to companies registered in tax havens such as Belize.
The program Periodismo Para Todos (PPT), by Jorge Lanata, last night revealed that the businessman Lázaro Báez, one of Cristina and Néstor Kirchner’s closest friends, took out of the country some 55 million euros which were transferred abroad outside the legal system, in a series of maneuvers typical of those who launder money or illicit cash gains.
One of those involved in the events, the person who used to transport the K millions in cash, affirmed that Néstor Kirchner knew all about the operations and was even Báez’s partner “in everything”.
The information was ratified by one of the victims in this story, Federico Elaskar, who accused Báez’s group of having threatened him in order to get him to sell the financial company which managed the process for the money leaving the country.
Báez, formerly an employee of the Banco de Santa Cruz, has over the last few years become a businessman with investments in construction, hotelry, oil and real estate. Deputy Elisa Carrió denounced him as “Kirchner’s frontman”.
The story of the route taken by the K cash mixes in extraordinary fashion politics with the underworld of parallel finance and showbiz.
The man who was in charge of the logistics for the Báez millions is Leonardo Fariña, husband of model Karina Jelinek. He used to coordinate the transport of millions of Euros in cash, in notes of 500 Euros which were flown on private jets in the dead of night from Santa Cruz to the Capital.
“I was handling the fortune of a guy with 5 billion dollars”, said Fariña about the job he did for Baez in interviews recorded on hidden cameras shown by PPT, and further on he linked Kirchner with handling the money which came from corruption: “You have no idea of the kind of structure Néstor had set up. I can assure you the guy handled everything”. According to Fariña, these operations correspond to the “money laundering network of the State”.
In part of his statement, the “bellboy” affirmed that the former president knew about these operations. “They came to me with the problems, and I offered them solutions. Lázaro called, met and then he told me ‘yes’ or ‘no’. I played football and ate asados with Kirchner.
Fariña studied Economics and lived until he grew up in a humble dwelling in the city of La Plata. His job with Báez changed his life. He says he achieved this by being smart at making contacts and investments. What is true is that there is no proven version of how he got so close to Báez.
As far as PPT was able to piece together, part of the millions of the Báez family which Fariña managed was transferred abroad using the SGI financial company on the 7th floor of the Madero Center complex in Puerto Madero district, the same building where the vice president Amado Boudou lives and where the presidential family owns two apartments and eight garages.
Clarín was able to access the documentation of a company located in Belize, a tax haven, called Teegan Inc. This offshore company also had a bank account at the Swiss bank Lombar Odier, which received a transfer of 1.5 million dollars which first arrived in Buenos Aires in cash: Fariña carried them there under Baez’s order.
Faxes show that the main shareholder of Teegan Inc. is Martín Báez, son of Lázaro and director of the construction company Austral and chairman of Boca Juniors of Río Gallegos. In March 2011, the President inaugurated the headquarters of this club.
The former owner of SGI, the financier Federico Elaskar, claimed that during the first half of 2011 Fariña took between 50 and 60 million Euros in cash which belonged to Báez to his company. “Fariña sent dozens of millions of dollars and Euros abroad to offshore companies linked to Lázaro Báez and his sons Leandro and Martín,” said Elaskar.
These millionaire transfers were made through the intermediation of an accountancy firm located in Panama. The link with these offices, according to Elaskar, was one of the SGI employees, Fabián Rossi, the husband of the showbiz star Iliana Calabró.
This world of crossed financial relations and suspicious millions ended badly.
After his public exposure grew thanks to Jelinek, Fariña stopped managing Báez’s accounting. The K businessman claimed a very large sum of money from him. “I felt betrayed. This involves a group of people which is in the middle and touches the President. I ended up being their scapegoat. I know all their business,” complained Fariña.
The former bellboy claims that an accountant employed by Baez, Daniel Pérez Gadín, is the man who today “carries out all the tasks I had”. Daniel Pérez Gadín advises Baez’s companies and manages the financial firm SGI which earlier belonged to Elaskar.
The former owner of this company claimed he was forced to sell when Pérez Gadin threatened him. “He told me that I had kept back money belonging to a client of his, Lázaro Báez.” Elaskar swears this is not true. “I have nothing to do with this. They made death threats against me, I had to sign over all the shares in my companies. I was forced to sell, at a very low price.”
After unloading his financial company, Elaskar left the country for a year. Báez continued to share the close company of the Kirchners. And Fariña dropped his profile. Until last night.
Telegraph
Friday, April 12, 2013
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Mario Soares, who steered the country to democracy after the Salazar dictatorship, said all political forces should unite to “bring down the government” and repudiate the austerity policies of the EU-IMF Troika.
“Portugal will never be able to pay its debts, however much it impoverishes itself. If you can’t pay, the only solution is not to pay. When Argentina was in crisis it didn’t pay. Did anything happen? No, nothing happened," he told Antena 1.
Ambito Financiero
Se lo adelantaron los abogados de la Argentina en Nueva York. Con los tres canjes, la aceptación superaría el 95%
Lunes, 15 de abril de 2013
Por Carlos Burgueño
Con prudencia, desde el Ministerio de Economía se maneja un dato optimista: varios de los bonistas que litigan contra la Argentina en Nueva York estarían dispuestos a aceptar el tercer canje de deuda en default. Se trata de varios de los holdouts que en su momento se sumaron al juicio de los fondos buitre Elliot y Aurelius contra el país buscando cobrar el 100%, pero la alternativa de que todo se extienda aún mucho más (y sin seguridad de cobrar) hizo que algunos comenzaran ya a pensar que es tiempo de obtener lo que se pueda.
Esta información llegó a Buenos Aires el fin de semana, desde el estudio de abogados que representan a la Argentina, el Cleary, Gotlieb, Steen & Hamilton. Desde las oficinas de Nueva York adelantaron que varios bonistas pidieron a sus representantes financieros que analicen la oferta presentada por el Gobierno de Cristina de Kirchner el 29 de marzo pasado. Éstos luego tomaron contacto con los abogados para conocer los términos técnicos de la oferta y las fórmulas de emisión de los dos títulos que presentaría la Argentina.
De la conversación entre los financistas y los representantes legales de la Argentina surgió la casi seguridad de que habría varios holdouts que ya considerarían que la batalla llegó a su fin, y que para ellos terminó siendo un mal negocio apostar a cobrar vía judicial. De alguna manera, según la explicación que llegó desde Nueva York, habría surgido el convencimiento de que finalmente la Argentina no pagaría esta deuda, aun con un fallo en contra, y que las posibilidades de obtener dinero vía embargos es ya casi nula.
Los interesados serían Pablo Alberto Varela, Mirta Susana Dieguez, María Evangelina Carballo, Lila Inés Burgueño, Leandro Daniel Pomilio, Teresa Muñoz de Corral, Norma Elsa Lavorato, Carmen Irma Lavorato, César Rubén Vázquez, Norma Haydée Gines y María Azucena Vázquez. Por sus nombres se especula que la mayoría son argentinos, o al menos latinoamericanos, y que optaron en su momento por sumarse a la embestida de Elliot y Aurelius en el tribunal de Thomas Griessa. Este magistrado aceptó a fines de 2010 acumular todas las causas por los reclamos, hasta dictaminar un fallo definitivo, lo que sucedió en noviembre de 2012, sancionando a la Argentina a pagar al contado u$s 1.330 millones. Luego vino la apelación, el "stay" de la Cámara y la situación actual con la nueva oferta ya oficial de la Argentina.
Igualmente, los bonistas esperarán a que sea la segunda instancia judicial la que aproximadamente un mes después de conocerse el seguro rechazo de los dos principales litigantes contra la Argentina (Elliot y Aurelius) determinará si la oferta es válida o no, pero sólo el hecho de la posibilidad de mostrarse interesados ante la Cámara sería un buen dato para la posición del país. Al menos esto aseguran los representantes legales de la Argentina en Nueva York.
Si algunos de estos holdouts aceptaran este tercer llamado a abrir el canje, finalmente el proceso de reestructuración de la deuda superaría el 95%, ya que actualmente ese porcentaje se encuentra en el 94,3%.
Superar la barrera psicológica de ese 95% es importante, ya que terminaría de demostrar que la posición de los bonistas, fundamentalmente los buitres, sería más que marginal. Igualmente éstos, ante la alternativa de un fallo totalmente adverso (algo imposible de determinar a esta altura), apelarían y llevarían la situación a una definición ante la Corte Suprema de Justicia de los Estados Unidos. Lo mismo haría la Argentina si la Cámara rechaza la oferta de reapertura del canje. Pero para una posición final más favorable al país, consideran los abogados que representan al país, es importante que el juicio se acote a una pelea entre un Estado soberano y fondos buitre.
Según los cálculos de Economía, habría entre 8.000 y 10.000 millones de dólares aún en default, de los cuales no menos de u$s 7.000 millones estarían en poder de los fondos buitre y resultarían una causa perdida para cualquier presentación para regularizar la deuda.
Es el dinero que permanece en poder de Elliott, Dart (especialmente estos dos), Olifant, Aurelius, Blue Angel y Master, entre otros. Habría luego entre 2.000 y 3.000 millones en manos de particulares, que si ingresan en el tercer canje llevarían al 95% el porcentaje de aceptación de la reestructuración del pasivo argentino (incluyendo los llamados de 2005 y 2010), una barrera psicológica importante para reforzar la negativa a acordar un pago del 100% con los fondos buitre.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen