Vollstreckungsversuch der ABDRECO GmbH aus 16 Mio + Zinsen vs Argentinien mit Provision von ca 30% an den "Tippgeber"
Anfang September 2013 kann wer will die stillen Mitglieder der ABDRECO in Frankfurt kennenlernen.
Genauer Termin mit Uhrzeit bei rolfjkoch@web.de T 06151 14 77 94 F 06151 14 53 52
Der Hintergrund dieses "Massenauflaufes"....bei Vollstreckungshandlungen vs Argy aus diesen Urteilen müssen die zu Grunde liegenden effektiven Stücke dem Vollstreckungsgericht vorgelegt werden.....
Freitag, 28. Juni 2013
Donnerstag, 27. Juni 2013
n a stunning upset of nobody's expectations, Argenitna is seeking Supreme Court review of the October 26, 2012 Second Circuit decision that it cannot pay its restructured debt unless it also pays the holdouts
Everyone's Got Supreme Court News - Argentina Edition
In a stunning upset of nobody's expectations, Argenitna is seeking Supreme Court review of the October 26, 2012 Second Circuit decision that it cannot pay its restructured debt unless it also pays the holdouts. Argentina has long promised to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, and did so on the eve of the first deadline for such an appeal. No news here.
The most interesting thing about the filing is what it does not do: it does not ask the Court to overturn the Second Circuit's interpretation of Argentina's pari passu clause, only the injunction based on that interpretation. Argentina's lawyers must have made the tactical decision to focus the intervention on federal law issues of the sort SCOTUS tends to review--the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)--and avoid distracting it with state law contract interpretation issues of the sort it does not. The result is that even if the Court agreed to review the case (unlikely), and Argentina prevailed (way unlikely), the interpretation of "rank payment obligations equally" as "pay ratably" would remain. This particular injunction against Argentina would fall away as impermissiblyextraterritorial (restraining sovereign property outside the United States), but there would still be room to play around with the ratable payment remedy going forward, notably for other debtors, in other restructurings, maybe in other jurisdictions.
To be sure, Argentina will have another go at the Supreme Court after the Second Circuit decides the remainder of the case on the precise scope and effect of the remedy, but by then it could hardly reopen the question of what the clause means.
Otherwise, the petition reiterates the argument Argentina and the United States have made many times before, that telling Argentina to pay or not to pay someone in New York effectively constrains what it does with its treasury funds in Buenos Aires, and contravenes the express intention of FSIA to leave some judgments against sovereigns unenforced. No news here.
The Brussels Commercial Tribunal will today tackle the lawsuit brought by the European bondholders who entered the Argentine debt swaps to halt any encroachment on their interests should the ruling passed by judge Thomas Griesa in the US be upheld, obliging financial entities to withhold their funds for the payment to the vulture funds.
El Cronista
A Belgian Court will rule on a bondholder lawsuit
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
The Brussels Commercial Tribunal will today tackle the lawsuit brought by the European bondholders who entered the Argentine debt swaps to halt any encroachment on their interests should the ruling passed by judge Thomas Griesa in the US be upheld, obliging financial entities to withhold their funds for the payment to the vulture funds.
At the start of the month, the Belgian Court took on a request for an expeditious trial for June 25, wherein the bondholders requested the Bank of New York Brussels, Euroclear and Euroclear Bank as intermediaries in the transactions not to withhold their funds for payment to the vulture funds.
The European bondholders are trying to get this court to oblige these entities, all under Belgian law, to honor their commitments in the payment process of the bonds issued by Argentina during the 2005 and 2010 swaps denominated in Euros.
They are hoping to avoid a legal ruling in the US bringing a halt to the normal procedures involved in the transfers to the European community.
These movements in the European Court were communicated by the self-same bondholders to the Court of Appeals of New York, which may soon rule on the lawsuit between Argentina and the vulture funds belonging to Paul Singer, NML, and Aurelius, for a total amount of 1.350 billion dollars.
In a letter addressed to Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Secretary of the New York Court of Appeals, the chambers representing the creditors, Latham & Watkins, maintained that the European Exchange bondholders were seeking to ward off an eventual clamp-down on payments to European bondholders.
European creditors were admitted as third parties affected by the US Court of Appeals in the lawsuit between Argentina and the vulture funds. In their presentation, made in New York and reiterated in their brief to the Belgian Court, they requested the Appeals Court, when deciding on whether to apply the pari passu order, to abstain from applying any order that touches on entities outside its jurisdiction, such as the Bank of New York branch in Brussels and Euroclear, both of which are taking part in the payments process.
The European bondholders emphasized that the eventual application of Griesa’s ruling would violate the principle that no Court may oblige entities in other countries to refrain from acting in other nation states regulated by national law.-
They warned in their letter that if the effects of a ruling include the Bank of New York and Euroclear on Belgian territory, “this could contravene a definitive ruling by a Belgian Court concerning the establishment of an order pertaining to the accused under to Belgian law, violating a clearly established principle.”
Joost Everaert
People
Contact details
+32 2 780 26 06
Download contact details
View officeJoost Everaert
Partner
Brussels
Joost specialises in litigation and complex contracts, and has a particular interest in energy and white-collar crime. He also deals with international trade and product liability, covering both dispute resolution and advisory work. In January 2008, Joost was appointed as one of the four members of Allen & Overy's Global Litigation Steering Committee, with responsibility for Continental Europe. In June 2010, he was elected as a member of the Council of the Brussels Bar. He heads Allen & Overy's Belgian energy practice and white collar & investigations practice.
Joost is recommended by Chambers Europe 2010 as: 'Joost Everaert is sought after for his experience in handling complex contract law issues'.
Joost is recommended by Chambers Europe 2010 as: 'Joost Everaert is sought after for his experience in handling complex contract law issues'.
Professional qualifications
Admitted as advocate, Belgium, 1993
Admitted as advocaat, Belgium, 1993
Exempt european lawyer, England and Wales, 2004
Admitted as advocaat, Belgium, 1993
Exempt european lawyer, England and Wales, 2004
Mittwoch, 26. Juni 2013
La dette argentine s’invite au tribunal
40
millions €
Le montant de (a tranche que
Bank of New York Mellon et Euroclear
devraient débloquer
d’ici au 30 juin prochain.
La dette argentine s’invite au tribunal
Une poignée de fonds d’investissements,
créanciers de
l’Argentine, ont cité The Bank
of New York Mellon et Euroclear
en justice afin de les forcer
à verser la tranche due au
30 juin 2013 dans le cadre du
plan de restructuration de la
dette argentine.
<*Les fonds craignent que les
deux institutions financières
invoquent un jugement américain
pour bloquer les fonds en
question. Il s’agit d’environ 40
millions d’euros.
Des fonds d’investissements ont
cité Bank o f New York Mellon et
Euroclear devant le tribunal de
commerce. Enjeu? Le paiement
d’une quarantaine de millions à
des créanciers de l'Argentine.
NICOLAS KESZEI
L’affaire qui aurait dû être plaidée
hier matin en référé au tribunal de
commerce de Bruxelles n’est pas
anodine. Une série de fonds d’investissements
ont cité Bank of New
York Mellon et Euroclear afin de les
forcer à leur verser les sommes qui
leur sont dues en leur qualité de titulaire
d’obligations argentines.
En réalité, ces fonds craignent
que les deux institutions s’appuient
sur un jugement rendu à New York
en novembre 2012 pour ne pas verser
la tranche due au 30 juin 2013.
Dans le cadre de la restructuration
de la dette argentine, ces fonds devraient
percevoir une quarantaine
de millions d’euros d ’ici à la fin du
mois.
Dette restructurée
L’affaire remonte à l’année 2002
lorsque l’Argentine, insolvable, s’est
retrouvée en défaut de paiement.
Face à ce blocage, et soucieuse de
pouvoir se représenter sur les marchés
financiers, elle a proposé à ses
créanciers un plan de restructuration
de sa dette.
Globalement, 93% des détenteurs
d’obligations argentines ont accepté
cette restructuration. Les 7% restants
ont toujours exigé d ’être payés à"
100% de la valeur de leurs créances.
Une position que l’Argentine a toujours
refusé de suivre.
Des procédures judiciaires ont
été entamées à cet égard aux Etats-
2012, un tribunal de New York donnait
raison à cette minorité de créanciers.
En résumé, le juge américain a
ordonné le paiement immédiat du
montant de 1,3 milliard de dollars
aux investisseurs qui avaient refusé
la restructuration de la dette argentine
lors de son défaut, en 2002.
Le juge américain a estimé qu’ily
avait discrimination dans le traitement
des créanciers de la République
argentine. Le jugement américain
est actuellement frappé d’une
procédure d’appel.
Risque de blocage
Et c’est justement parce qu’une série
de fonds (Khighthead Capital, Redwood
Capital, VR Global Partners,
Silver point, Golden Tree Asset Management,
QVTFund,...) avaient
peur que Bank o f New York Mellon
et Euroclear s’appuient sur le jugement
new-yorkais pour ne pas verser
aux créanciers la tranche prévue
le 30 juin prochain qu’ils ont intenté
une action à Bruxelles.
Dans cette affaire, Bank of New
York Mellon (BONY) est considérée
comme le «trustee», l’agent payeur
qui répartit les fonds débloqués par
l’Argentine. Dès qu’elle touche les
fonds, Bank of New York les tTansfèreVers
Euroclear qui les dirige ensuite
vers une série de banques qui,
elles, iront créditer les comptes de
leurs clients détenteurs d’obligations
argentines. Et comme le jugement
de New York empêche les intermédiaires
de la chaîne d’aider
l’Argentine à payer les détenteurs de
nouvelles obligations si les détenteurs
d’anciennes ne le sont pas également
(selon le principe d’égalité
de traitement entre créanciers), le
risque de blocage complet est réel.
Les fonds qui ont introduit cette
action à Bruxelles redoutent en réalité
que le résultat de la procédure
d’appel en cours aux Etats-Unis ne
soit négatif à leur encontre et ils
cherchent un moyen de se protéger.
Cette action, visant les deux derniers
maillons de la chaîne, tend à
demander au tribunal de forcer ces
deux acteurs à faire ce qui est en leur
pouvoir pour que l’Argentine paye
les nouvelles obligations.
En outre, Jean-Paul Hordies (De
Gaulle Fleurance), qui représente les
fonds en question, a demandé au tribunal
qu’il condamne Bank of New
York Mellon et Euroclear à une astreinte
de 100.000 euros par jour de
retard s’ils venaient à être condamnés
à effectuer les virements en
question.
La question de principe, en droit,
ne manquera pas d’intérêt.
Incident d’audience
Ceci étant, l’affaire, qui aurait dû être
plaidée hier, a été reportée à jeudi.
Un incident d’audience a en effet opposé
les deux équipes d’avocats agissant
pour le compte des fonds et
pour le compte de Bank of New York
Mellon et d’Euroclear.
C’est Joost Everaert (Allen &
Overy), le conseil de Bank of New
York Mellon, qui a ouvert les hostilités,
voulant faire rejeter deux pièces
introduites à la dernière minute par
la partie adverse dans la procédure.
Renseignements pris, il apparaît
que l’une de ces pièces est en réalité
un affidavit (déclaration sous serment)
d’un professeur de droit de
l’université de Columbia qui dit que
si la justice belge devait forcer les
deux institutions à débloquer les
fonds argentins, elles ne risquent
pas d’être poursuivies aux Etats-Unis
pour violation de l’ordre du juge
américain. En résumé, c’est l’étendue
territoriale de la décision américaine
qui sera au coeur des débats.
Les avocats des fonds ont tenté de
faire rejeter des pièces de la partie
adverse. Faute d’accord, l’affaire a été
remise à ce jeudi. K. 1
Argentina asks US Supreme Court to hear defaulted creditors case
une 25, 2013 8:34 pm
Argentina asks US Supreme Court to hear defaulted creditors case
Argentina has filed an appeal to the US Supreme Court in its legal battle with hedge fund creditors led by Elliott Management, seeking to reverse a lower-court ruling last October that ordered it to pay defaulted creditors when it paid performing debt.
The filing, known as a writ of certiorari, was filed late on Monday ahead of a June 24 deadline for such appeals to be lodged. It comes as expectations mount that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York will rule within weeks on the thorny case that could lead to another Argentine debt default.
ON THIS TOPIC
- Blow to Fernández over judiciary plan
- Facundo Pieres ‘Best is yet to come’
- Polo Sports kit
- Argentine farmers halt grain sales
IN AMERICAS POLITICS & POLICY
Lawyers have long doubted that the Supreme Court will hear the case, given that it turns down the vast majority of cases, and primarily concerns itself with constitutional matters, while Elliott’s case against Argentina is a civil matter.
Nonetheless, the potential international ramifications of the case for how countries default and restructure on their case could spur the Supreme Court to take an interest, some lawyers have said.
The Second Circuit will have to make a final ruling before the Supreme Court can hear the case, but Argentina is widely expected to suffer a resounding defeat. Argentine international bonds trade at a steep discount to their face value on the expectation that Buenos Aires would rather default on its debts again than obey the court’s order to pay creditors it calls “vultures”.
Argentine state news agency Télam quoted unnamed economy ministry sources as saying the petition argued that the lower court’s ruling violated the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act because it sought to restrict the use of assets outside the US.
In addition, it argued that a Federal court-ordered injunction ahead of a final ruling that forced a country to make a payment went against Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Argentina considers the Second Circuit ruling an “unprecedented intromission” into its sovereignty, and warns that an adverse ruling would imperil future government debt restructurings. The US court, on the other hand, has called Argentina “contumacious” in its disregard for unfavourable legal rulings over the past decade.
Argentina is keenly awaiting proceedings in a Belgian court by holders of euro-denominated Argentine bonds, who want to make sure that their English-law bonds will be paid.
Marcelo Etchebarne, an Argentine lawyer who has been following the case closely, said Argentina’s argument that federal courts cannot tell Argentina what to do in its own country “is probably a bit late”.
Mr Etchebarne said the European filing had probably delayed the Second Circuit’s decision, but he still expected a ruling within the first couple of weeks of July, before the three law clerks assigned for a year to each judge leave.
“It will be a nightmare to get new clerks to work on this massive case,” he said.
El tribunal se expediría dentro de 4 meses sobre el pedido del Gobierno de rechazar el fallo que obliga a pagar
Miércoles 26 de junio de 2013 | Publicado en edición impresa
Deuda
En octubre, la Corte de EE.UU. decidirá sobre los holdouts
El tribunal se expediría dentro de 4 meses sobre el pedido del Gobierno de rechazar el fallo que obliga a pagar
WASHINGTON.- Otra vez a esperar. De acuerdo con quienes vienen siguiendo el caso, habrá que tener paciencia por lo menos "hasta octubre próximo" para saber qué contesta la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos al primer pedido que le formuló la Argentina para que acepte revisar la demanda de los llamados "fondos buitre", expediente que tiene al país en riesgo de una nueva suspensión de pagos.
La Casa Rosada dio ese paso casi in extremis , cuando se le agotaba el plazo procesal. Pero ahora el reloj empezó a correr para lo que constituye su mayor expectativa. Esto es, que el gobierno de Barack Obama respalde la petición ante el máximo tribunal de su país. El tiempo que tiene pare hacerlo vence el 25 de julio próximo, según se indicó a LA NACION.
"Lo primero que hay que tener en cuenta, y no es lo único, es que el máximo tribunal entra en receso mañana [por hoy]. Sólo abrirá su segundo período de deliberaciones el 7 de octubre, de modo que hay que esperar hasta entonces", dijo a LA NACION el abogado Richard Samp, de la Washington Legal Foundation, con sede en esta ciudad.
La segunda cuestión es esperar. ¿Qué?: en este punto, los criterios se vuelven opuestos. Por ejemplo, para el ex titular de la representación argentina en el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID) Eugenio Díaz Bonilla, las posibilidades de una respuesta favorable son "mayores" que las que normalmente se conjetura.
"Primero, el Gobierno ha hecho bien en apelar para mantener intacta la opción de llegar a la Corte Suprema, si lo necesita", dijo Díaz Bonilla, en diálogo con LA NACION.
Lo segundo tiene que ver con el fallo -que se espera para cualquier momento- de la Cámara de Apelaciones de Nueva York y que precederá, naturalmente, a cualquier decisión de la Corte Suprema.
"Si el fallo de la Corte de Nueva York es totalmente adverso a la Argentina, se producirán efectos negativos para el sistema de contratos centrado en esa plaza y, en general, para la resolución deudas soberanas, algo que compromete la seguridad jurídica del sistema judicial en Nueva York", reflexionó el ex directivo, al tomar partido junto a los pocos que vaticinan un final más salomónico.
En la vereda de enfrente, Samp usa el mismo argumento de Díaz Bonilla: el epicentro en Nueva York -pero para pronosticar lo contrario- y ratificar las "escasas posibilidades" de que la Corte Suprema tome el caso.
"Es altamente improbable que el máximo tribunal acceda a este pedido o a cualquier otro que, por el mismo caso, haga la Argentina en el futuro. Ocurre que los asuntos involucrados refieren básicamente a legislación de Nueva York, y la Corte, por lo general, sólo accede a considerar cuestiones que competen a la ley federal, no a la estatal", dijo.
Tal como adelantó LA NACION, el Gobierno hizo en la noche del lunes un pedido de revisión a la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos por la demanda que le abrieron los llamados "fondos buitre" y por el que ya tiene dos condenas en su contra.
El paso fue calificado como "preventivo" por quienes vienen siguiendo el caso y pendiente de resoluciones todavía no producidas por parte de la Cámara de Apelaciones de Nueva York, que tiene bajo revisión la condena que el juez Thomas Griesa le impuso al país para que trate de igual manera tanto a los bonistas que aceptaron el canje de deuda como a los que no lo hicieron.
BÉLGICA DECIDE MAÑANA
En tanto, la definición del pedido de los bonistas europeos ante la corte comercial de Bélgica pasó para mañana. Estos acreedores solicitaron que el fallo de la justicia de EE.UU., que condenó al país a pagarles a los holdouts en Nueva York, no los alcance, porque tienen bonos argentinos con legislación europea, de modo de poder seguir cobrando la deuda..
Dienstag, 25. Juni 2013
Telam Argentina raised the first appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court
Telam
Argentina raised the first appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
While awaiting the pronouncement of the Court of Appeals in New York in the case by the vulture funds, the government filed its first appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court against the ruling of that same court which upheld Judge Thomas Griesa.
So confirmed to Telam the Economy Ministry, led by Hernan Lorenzino, by indicating that “today Argentina filed the first extraordinary recourse (Writ of Certiorari) before the Supreme Court of the United States of New York.” (sic)
"It’s the first recourse against the sentence issued on October 26, 2012 (by the court), even as a definitive ruling awaits,” they said.
These moves by the economic team, which worked over the weekend on the brief, mark the guideline of the lawsuit that the country faces against the vulture funds, will extend the timing, at the margin of the ruling from the Court of Appeals in New York, which could come in the coming weeks.
Argentina stretched out the filing of the recourse until the deadline scheduled for today (June 24), “in a manner of not anticipating the arguments of a future appeal against the definitive ruling of the appellate court,” which still has not come, and that according to the result “could be subject to yet another subsequent recourse before the Supreme Court,” added the same sources.
Argentina’s filing exclusively attacked two aspects of the appellate court’s aspects that upheld decisions by Judge Griesa, and that in the judgment of the country, “affects federal questions that are unique and could be reviewed by the Supreme Court.”
In the first place, the brief argues that “if a Court violates the Federal Sovereign Immunities Law (FSIA), by executing monetary claims against a country through the granting of orders that restrict the use of its assets not only located in the U.S., but also outside its territory, (this) alleges going beyond the arena of execution that the law provides.”
The second point affirms that “if a Federal Court can issue injunctions previous to the sentence, forcing a country to pay a purely monetary claim, it therefore goes against Supreme Court jurisprudence in relation to traditional equitable remedies do not include orders designed to force payments agreed to contractually or the specific honoring of monetary obligations.”
With the brief filed today, “Argentina continues maximizing the legal resources that have allowed it to reject the attempts by the vultures to collect on one side, and on the other continue complying with the payments committee to by the swaps of 2005 and 2007,” emphasized the sources.
At his opportunity, Lorenzino showed, in this direction, that “we are turning to all legal instances that are necessary, including the U.S. Court, to comply with creditors that believed in and believe in Argentina.”
For Argentina, the appellate court’s decision “justifies being reviewed because it represents an unprecedented interference in the activities of a foreign state within its own territory that raises concerns about the foreign relations of the United States,” argues the brief in relation to the first argument.
The document adds that, by compromising the payments from the swap to pay the vulture funds, “the decision also puts at risk the process of voluntary sovereign debt restructuring which counts on the support both of the United States as well as the rest of the international financial community.”
The filing makes reference to the interventions that the U.S. government itself has already made during the process through New York federal attorneys.
In equal fashion it negative effect was mentioned that will be had on the financial market in New York as an international financial center, and the systemic effect on other debt restructurings.
Thus, in the face of the lawsuit in progress in Belgium from the European bondholders from the swap, who are seeking to halt the advance of Griesa’s ruling in that jurisdiction, the economic team confirmed to Telam that “it is advancing on the scenario of the responses that can be given from other courts outside the U.S.”
In another part of the brief, Argentina argues that “it’s difficult to conceive a question that irritates a foreign state and the international community more than the order of a court of a nation upon another nation on issues that go to the heart of the definition of sovereignty.”
It argues in another paragraph from the brief that a solution like Griesa’s “has no precedent in any court” and “contradicts” other rulings from different federal courts and the appellate court itself that issued it, around ‘pari passu’ (equal treatment to creditors).”
Lastly, in reference to the second argument made by Argentina, the text filed by Argentina questioned technical aspects “referring to the impossibility of the courts to grant remedies based on equity when adequate legal remedies exist.”
In this direction, the sources indicated that “the orders that, with the object of repairing a purely monetary harm, prohibit the Republic from effecting payments to a group of creditors, less that it make pro-rata payments to another group of creditors, violates every one of these fundamental precepts.”
La Nacion
The government appeals before the U.S. Supreme Court
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
by Martín Kanenguiser | LA NACION
Almost out of breath, the government appealed at the last minute last night before the U.S. Supreme Court the appellate ruling that condemned it to pay the holdouts US$1.333 billion from last October.
The extraordinary recourse, like LA NACION reported yesterday, came on the last possible day to file a complaint on the decision that favored the vulture funds NML and Aurelius and 13 Argentine bondholders.
The Economy Ministry didn’t respond to numerous questions from LA NACION to know if they would take advantage of this opportunity or not. More still, sources from a bank that works with the government said that the economic team “was not aware” of this key deadline for the defense of the country’s interests.
Last night, in silence, through the official news agency Telam, the government released the brief prepared by the law firm that represents the country in the U.S., Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton.
"It’s a first recourse against the sentence issued on October 26, 2012 (by the court), even as a definitive ruling is being awaited,” the agency said.
What the law firm did was to question the judgment of “pari passu” issued by the lower court Judge Thomas Griesa and the Court of Appeals, in both rulings released last year. According to those courts, the government has to treat (and pay) in similar fashion the bondholders that entered the swaps to exit the default in 2005 and 2010.
Yesterday’s brief tries to focus the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, which must study if it takes the case or not, on the possibility of a federal law having been violated; in this case, the one on sovereign immunity. The argument is that, with preceding rulings, “monetary claims against a country, through the granting of orders that restrict the use of its assets located not only in the United States, but also outside its territory,” will be executed, which “goes beyond the scope of execution that is provided by the law” on immunity.
The sentences, it added, “also put at risk the process of voluntary sovereign debt restructuring, which counts on the support both of the United States as well as the rest of the international financial community,” as reflected in filings before different courts. According to Telam, the request from Judge Griesa to pay the holdouts 100% in a lump sum “has no precedent in any court” of the United States.
Attorney Marcelo Etchebarne, partner at the firm of Cabanellas, Etchebarne, Kelly & Dell'Oro Maini, said to LA NACION: "I don’t believe that there is a federal case for the Supreme Court to take the case, because the Argentine argument that this is an attachment is mistaken and, as such, doesn’t violate federal law.”
In turn, the partner from the Garrido firm, Eugenio Bruno, said that “the court will take the case” and affirmed that “there are precedents of rulings in favor of the country, like in 1992, when it proved that the issuing of bonds is a commercial act and the one on the reserves of the Central Bank in 2012.”
The Court of Appeals still must decide how the government must pay the plaintiffs.
A case is decided today in Belgium
The commercial court of Brussels will decide today if it accepts the request of European bondholders so that the U.S. justice sentence expected to be against Argentina not affect its payments. The request was made by a group of creditors that accepted the swaps of 2005 and 2010 to exit the default.
El Cronista
Lorenzino prepares a trip to Washington
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
The beginning of summer vacations in the United States refloated over this weekend the possibility that before the end of the month the ruling will be known from the Court of Appeals of New York about the decision of Judge Thomas Griesa from October 26 that ordered the Argentine government to pay the US$1.37 billion that the vulture funds demand.
For that motive it’s likely that part of the team that is led by Economy Minister Hernan Lorenzino will travel before the end of the month to Washington to closely follow the repercussions of the ruling.
Lorenzino and his aides have already been warned by the attorneys from the firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton about the steps taken in the last week by the three judges of the appellate court that are in charge of the case, Republican Reena Raggi and Democrats Rosemary Pooler and Daniels Barrington Parker.
It is speculated that two of these judges rule against Argentina. It has to be pointed out that the ruling is at the appeals level, with which in any case the final word remains before the U.S. Supreme Court. Until now the White House was favorable to the country, as well as the IMF, which recently came out with a document against Griesa’s ruling.
Change of jurisdiction
At Economy they already began to evaluate alternatives to face this legal process and keep the service on the debt afoot. Last night, they filed recourse before the Supreme Court of the United States that opens the door to a final appeal. But officials didn’t fail to exploit, at the same time, alternatives to maintain payments. The option that they are studying with more attention is the change of jurisdiction of bond payments to avoid attachments.
According to what ministry sources disclosed “this would oblige Argentina to change even intermediaries for payments on bonds, and would generate an unexplored but not impossible change of payment, to pay the debt.”
At Economy, they call this modality “a kind of technical modification of payment but not technical default.” In particular because it is argued from the government that there is will and capacity to pay by the country to the bondholders. “This alternative cannot be called a default, as some opposition voices from the market are planning to say,” they say at Economy, while admitting that there would be an alteration in the conditions of payment according to what is strictly established in the bond contracts.
Overall, at the Palacio de Hacienda they also admit that “there is a chance that one cannot rule out that after evaluating the swap proposal and arguments from Argentina explained in last February’s hearing and in documents sent to the court last March, the court would decide to also review the criteria of ‘pari passu’ to the creditors,” a situation that would benefit Argentina.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)