Predictable: ruling from Griesa does not apply in Argentina
Monday, March 10, 2014
The Supreme Court of Justice rejected a petition from the U.S. investment fund Claren Corporation which solicited the compliance in the country with a sentence from New York Judge Thomas Griesa. The judge had ordered the Argentine state to pay public debt bonds held by the company of that country. The Court understood that Griesa’s sentences cannot be applied in Argentina.
In 2007, the judge from the Southern District of New York ordered the Argentine state to pay Claren the total sum of US$7,507,089 in principal and interest on unpaid Negotiable External Global Bonds 1997-2017, which had been acquired by the company.
Attorney General Alejandra Gils Carbó had requested that the highest court dismiss the execution – under the name exequátur- demanded by the creditor that was benefited by Griesa’s ruling. The Court backed the attorney general, who based her argument on the economic emergency law, passed during the 2001 crisis. For the court, the validity of the law was not even up for debate in Griesa’s jurisdiction.
The complaint before the Court was brought forward by attorney Horacio Liendo, who had worked on the team of Domingo Cavallo at the Economy Ministry. “The exequátur attempted by Claren does not satisfy the requirement laid out in section 4 of Article 517 of the Civil and Commercial Code, insofar as admitting the attempt by the plaintiff would mean validating that this, through an individual action brought before a foreign court, eludes the process of public debt restructuring put forth by the Argentine state through the emergency laws issued by the competent authorities according to what is established in the national Constitution,” said the justices who signed it.
Global Post (EFE)
Friday, March 7, 2014
Washington, Mar 7 (EFE).- The U.S. government has filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court supporting Argentina's position in a bank-subpoena dispute with hedge funds that are seeking full payment on defaulted bonds.
In the brief, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. argued that the U.S. government has a "substantial interest in the correct interpretation and application" of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA.
Forbes (Also on Legal Pulse)
Friday, March 7, 2014
By Richard Samp
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a divided opinion in a case that raised an important issue of arbitration law: should an arbitrator or a judge decide whether an international treaty requires a private party to bring a commercial dispute before a judge prior to attempting arbitration? In BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina, the Court ruled 7-2 against Argentina, concluding that arbitrators acted within their power when they concluded that a British firm was not required to file suit in Argentina’s courts before seeking arbitration. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Kennedy, dissented; they argued that in signing the bilateral UK-Argentina investment treaty, Argentina agreed to arbitration only on condition that investors bring their disputes to an Argentine court first. But there was one point on which the justices agreed unanimously: Argentina has a sorry history of living up to its contractual commitments to investors. That point of agreement does not bode well for Argentina, which in two pending Supreme Court cases is asking the Court to permit it to invoke sovereign immunity as the basis for resisting repayment of sovereign debt.