Samstag, 15. Juni 2013
falls der Argy-Case zum Supreme Court kommt.....
Majority of Supreme Court members millionaires
Ginsburg, Breyer top list of wealthiest justices
Advertisement
At least five and perhaps as many as eight of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court are millionaires according to recently released financial disclosures, and only two hold any consumer debt.
Assets on the forms are reported in a range making it impossible to say precisely how much each justice is worth, but suffice to say, none of them are hurting financially.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg boasts the highest potential net worth at $18.1 million withStephen Breyer a close second at $17.1 million. Both were appointed by former President Bill Clinton.
However, Ginsburg’s actual net worth may be as low as $4.4 million and Breyer’s as low as $5 million. Federal officials are also exempt from disclosing the value of their homes, making an accurate calculation even more difficult.
After collecting nearly $2 million in book advances, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's assets rose to between $1.7 and $10.3 million, ranking her No. 3 in terms of highest potential net worth. Sotomayor is an appointee of President Barack Obama.
Chief Justice John Roberts, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, possesses one of the court’s most complex financial portfolios. His net worth is valued between $2.8 million and $6.6 million, ranking him No. 4.
As for the rest:
- Antonin Scalia, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, reported a net worth between $1.9 and $4.2 million, ranking him No. 5.
- Obama appointee Elena Kagan's assets total between $815,000 and $2.1 million, according to the Center’s analysis, putting her at No. 6.
- Clarence Thomas, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush reported between $1.8 million and $715,000, ranking him seventh.
- Samuel Alito has not yet filed his 2012 report and sought an extension, but in 2011the George W. Bush appointee reported between $380,000 and $1.1 million in wealth putting him at No. 8 for maximum potential wealth.
- Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Reagan, reported assets of between $330,000 and $700,000, placing him at No. 9.
Salaries plus perks
Justices make good money, though with their backgrounds they could easily earn much more in the private sector. Roberts, as chief justice, earns $223,500 per year, while the eight associate justices make $213,900.
But there are perks. Judges rake in tens of thousands of dollars from speaking fees, professorships and book deals.
Most of Ginsburg’s assets are held in mutual funds and retirement accounts. In 2012, Ginsburg earned nearly $26,000 for taking part in two separate university-sponsored events, including a two-week Wake Forest School of Law summer seminar held in Venice, Italy, and in Vienna, Austria.
The bulk of Breyer’s holdings are in mutual funds, retirement accounts and bonds. But one of Breyer’s two largest reported assets is a $1 million to $5 million stake in Pearson, the publishing company that owns the Penguin Group and The Financial Times. The justice collected between $15,000 and $50,000 last year in dividends thanks to his stock holdings in that company.
Breyer enjoyed a windfall last summer when he sold his stock in Amgen, Inc., the pharmaceutical company that was party in a case that came before the Supreme Court in its most recent term. In late September, just a month after he realized between $15,000 and $50,000 in gains by selling his Amgen holdings, the court docket noted that Breyer was no longer recused from proceedings related to the case.
Investing in China
Also notable is Breyer’s holdings in Tai Shan Fund which invests in tech companies in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan and is part of a Boston-based capital management firm led by investor Thomas Clafflin, according to a Bloomberg report.
Roberts has invested heavily in technology and telecommunications companies — some of which have had business before the high court. He also owns a mix of bonds, retirement accounts, mutual funds and shared ownership of a cottage in County Limerick, Ireland.
The top justice owns up to a total of $750,000 in shares of Time Warner, Microsoft and Texas Instruments and up to $200,000 in T-Mobile and Sirius XM Radio stock, according to his report.
Roberts recused himself from a patent dispute involving Microsoft, which the software giant lost in a unanimous 8-0 decision in 2011.
As the Center for Public Integrity reported last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s disclosure is notable for the nearly $2 million she received in book advances and promotion for her memoir, My Beloved World, published by Knopf Doubleday.
One of Sotomayor’s most valuable assets is her former New York City residence, now a rental property valued between $1 million and $5 million, though she carries a mortgage on the property. Unlike most of her colleagues on the bench, Sotomayor reported a handful of liabilities in her disclosure, including between $250,000 and $500,000 for the rental. Her debts for four credit cards were each less than $15,000.
Scalia reported a debt of less than $15,000 for a loan on a life insurance policy.
Scalia also reported receiving between $5,000 and $15,000 in rent for a property he owns in Charlottesville, Va. His report also shows that he has investments in gold-related securities totaling between $80,000 and $215,000.
Scalia reported earning $26,500 in 2012 for teaching at five different universities, including John Marshall Law School and the University of Southern California. Scalia also reported receiving nearly $64,000 in book royalties. Last year, the justice co-authored Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts with legal scholar Bryan Gardner.
Well-traveled justices
Scalia traveled frequently in 2012. In the “Reimbursement” section of his financial disclosure, he reports 28 trips to various schools and organizations to deliver speeches and lectures.
In most cases, the justice was provided or reimbursed for transportation, food and lodging. (Federal officials are not required to report how much they were reimbursed, either in exact amounts or in dollar ranges.) In September and October, Scalia gave speeches and lectures at five events hosted by the Federalist Society, a conservative nonprofit that advocates reform of the legal system.
Scalia reported giving a speech at an Aug. 25 event hosted by “Friends of Abe,” a low-profileconservative group organized by actor Gary Sinise and whose members reportedly include singer Pat Boone and actor Jon Voight.
Scalia also reported receiving one gift in 2012. According to his disclosure report, the justice accepted a $1,000 shotgun from the National Wild Turkey Federation.
The bulk of Kagan’s assets were invested in mutual funds and retirement accounts, including some from the University of Chicago, where she was a law professor in the 1990s.
Thomas reported investments in gold- and silver-related securities valued at somewhere between $60,000 and $200,000, according to his report.
Though Kennedy was the high court’s least wealthy justice for the third consecutive year, his report indicates that 2012 was a year of jet setting for the moderate judge. Between January and November of last year, Kennedy traveled to Las Vegas, Palm Springs, Aspen, Maui, London and Paris for various speaking and teaching arrangements.
Freitag, 14. Juni 2013
die Rechtsanwälte die Argy in Frankfurt vertreten ("gesteuert" von Cleary) drohen mir mit einer Zwangsvollstreckung aus 39 € ++ / dabei vertrete ich Titel rechtskräftig in millionen euro Höhe vs Argy // Cleary vertritt auch Griechenland......vs Anleihegläubiger
die Rechtsanwälte die Argy in Frankfurt vertreten ("gesteuert" von Cleary) drohen mir mit einer Zwangsvollstreckung aus 39 € ++ / dabei vertrete ich Titel rechtskräftig in millionen euro Höhe vs Argy // Cleary vertritt auch Griechenland......vs Anleihegläubiger
12, Juni 2013
dk 431/06501
Republik Argentinien gegen tour Kommunalbedarf GmbH
Sehr geehrte Frau Kollegin nn,
in oben genannter Angelegenheit wurde der tour Kommunalbedarf GmbH der
Kostenfestsetzungsbeschluss des Amtsgerichts Frankfurt, Aktenzeichen 31C 2892/06-17 vom
14.01,2008 zugestellt,
Hiernach hat Ihre Mandantin an unsere Mandantin € 39,00 nebst Zinsen In Höhe van 5
Prozentpunkten über dem Basiszinssatz seit dem 28.12.2007 zu erstatten, Dieser Betrag wurde bis
zum heutigen Tage nicht ausgeglichen.
Namens und Im Aufträge unserer Mandantin setzen wir thrfer Mandantin zur Vermeidung.von
ZwangsuoilstreckungamaßnBhmen hiermit eine letzte Frist zur Zahlung des vorgenannten Betrages
einschließlich der Zinsen bis zum
26. Juni 2013.
Die Zahlung hat auf unser Konto bei der Postbank Frankfurt am Main, BLZ 500100 60,
Kontonummer xy-607, zu erfolgen. Zum Geldempfang sind wir bevollmächtigt. Maßgeblich für
die Rechtzeitigkeit der Zahlung ist der Eingang auf dem vorgenannten Konto. Eine Stundung ist
hiermit nicht verbunden,
Sollten wir bis zu diesem Datum keinen Zahlungseingang verbuchen können, werden wir unserer
Mandantin anraten ohne weitere Abmahnung die Zwangsvollstreckung betreiben,
Da Ihre Mandantin nicht fristgerecht auf den Kostenfestsetüungsbeschluss gezahlt hat, ist sie
verpflichtet unserer Mandantin die Kosten unsferer Inanspruchnahme zu erstatten, Diese beziffern
sich wie folgt:
Gegenstandswert: 99,00 €
0,3 Vsrfahrensfjebübr Zwangsvollstreckung § 13 RVG, Nr. 3309 VV RVG 10,00 €
Pauschale für Post und Telekommunikation Nr, 7002 VV RVG Z.Q0€
Zwlachensumme netto 12,00 €
0 % Mfelirwertsteuer Nr, 7008 VV RV6 0.00 €
Gesamtbetrag 12.00 £
Auch zur Einzahlung der Gebühren für dieses Schreiben auf unserem Konto bei der Pastbank
Frankfurt am Main, BLZ 5Ö010060, Konto-Nr. xy-607, setzen wir ihrer Mandantin eine Frist bis
zum 26.06.Ä013. Sollten wir bis zu diesem Datum keinen Zahlungseingang verbuchen können,
werden wir unserer Mandantin empfehlen müssen, den Erstattungsanspruch gerichtlich
durchzusetzeri.
dk 431/06501
Republik Argentinien gegen tour Kommunalbedarf GmbH
Sehr geehrte Frau Kollegin nn,
in oben genannter Angelegenheit wurde der tour Kommunalbedarf GmbH der
Kostenfestsetzungsbeschluss des Amtsgerichts Frankfurt, Aktenzeichen 31C 2892/06-17 vom
14.01,2008 zugestellt,
Hiernach hat Ihre Mandantin an unsere Mandantin € 39,00 nebst Zinsen In Höhe van 5
Prozentpunkten über dem Basiszinssatz seit dem 28.12.2007 zu erstatten, Dieser Betrag wurde bis
zum heutigen Tage nicht ausgeglichen.
Namens und Im Aufträge unserer Mandantin setzen wir thrfer Mandantin zur Vermeidung.von
ZwangsuoilstreckungamaßnBhmen hiermit eine letzte Frist zur Zahlung des vorgenannten Betrages
einschließlich der Zinsen bis zum
26. Juni 2013.
Die Zahlung hat auf unser Konto bei der Postbank Frankfurt am Main, BLZ 500100 60,
Kontonummer xy-607, zu erfolgen. Zum Geldempfang sind wir bevollmächtigt. Maßgeblich für
die Rechtzeitigkeit der Zahlung ist der Eingang auf dem vorgenannten Konto. Eine Stundung ist
hiermit nicht verbunden,
Sollten wir bis zu diesem Datum keinen Zahlungseingang verbuchen können, werden wir unserer
Mandantin anraten ohne weitere Abmahnung die Zwangsvollstreckung betreiben,
Da Ihre Mandantin nicht fristgerecht auf den Kostenfestsetüungsbeschluss gezahlt hat, ist sie
verpflichtet unserer Mandantin die Kosten unsferer Inanspruchnahme zu erstatten, Diese beziffern
sich wie folgt:
Gegenstandswert: 99,00 €
0,3 Vsrfahrensfjebübr Zwangsvollstreckung § 13 RVG, Nr. 3309 VV RVG 10,00 €
Pauschale für Post und Telekommunikation Nr, 7002 VV RVG Z.Q0€
Zwlachensumme netto 12,00 €
0 % Mfelirwertsteuer Nr, 7008 VV RV6 0.00 €
Gesamtbetrag 12.00 £
Auch zur Einzahlung der Gebühren für dieses Schreiben auf unserem Konto bei der Pastbank
Frankfurt am Main, BLZ 5Ö010060, Konto-Nr. xy-607, setzen wir ihrer Mandantin eine Frist bis
zum 26.06.Ä013. Sollten wir bis zu diesem Datum keinen Zahlungseingang verbuchen können,
werden wir unserer Mandantin empfehlen müssen, den Erstattungsanspruch gerichtlich
durchzusetzeri.
Mittwoch, 12. Juni 2013
Clarin Reopening of the swap: denunciation against Boudou is expanded
Clarin
Reopening of the swap: denunciation against Boudou is expanded
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Proyecto Sur deputy and Senate candidate Fernando “Pino” Solanas yesterday widened his denunciation before federal Judge Ariel Lijo against Vice President Amado Boudou for influence peddling and dishonoring the duties of a public official.
It is a complaint that Solanas had filed in May against the ex-Economy minister over ties between the Arcadia consulting firm and the government in the debt swap and restructuring of the Brady Plan.
According to what the deputy put forth in his filing, that consulting firm, owned by economist Emilio Ocampo and attorney Marcelo Etchebarne Mihanovich, was constituted with meager funds and only as an effect of the debt swap of 2010 and only with these persons as members.
The candidate for Senate of the Proyecto Sur (and ally of Elisa Carrio), asked, also, for a series of discovery measures to identify the participating bondholders and all the documentation in the possession of the banks Barclays, Citibank and Deutsche about the operation.
Solanas’ complaint is complemented by the one filed by Deputy Claudio Lozano of the Union Popular, an economist.
Boudou is implicated in the legal case in which it is being investigated if he committed the crime of influence trafficking to benefit the owners of debt bonds: the suspicion is based on the role in this operation of the Arcadia company and its ties to Boudou and other government officials.
Boudou’s actions in this case, according to Solanas, are centered on Articles 248 and 265 of the Nation’s Penal Code. He said that the Vice President, when he was Economy minister, had committed these crimes because:
• There was an infraction of the legal and regulatory norms, specifically on the missions and functions of the Board of Research and Economic Statistics of the BCRA.
• There were omissions in the performance of his functions and there is evidence of bungling or carelessness in that performance.
• The actions and omissions by Amado Boudou reveal a dishonoring of the duties of a public official, conforming to the principal elements of the proper activity of those who occupy the Directorate-General of Legal Affairs of the Economy sub-secretariat.
• There were irregular actions and infractions to legal and regulatory norms.
The external debt lacks economic, financial and administrative justification.
The complaints in the case could be considered proven.
Authorities at the BCRA repeatedly departed from institutional, legal and regulatory norms.
There was a diversion of funds in the debt operations of YPF.
There was omission from the BCRA as the state’s financial agent.
La Nacion
Argentina faces another lawsuit from a privatized company in the United States
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
by Martín Kanenguiser | LA NACION
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday accepted review of a complaint that the company British Gas filed against Argentina for the pesification of debts and tariffs of Metrogas in 2002, after an arbitration tribunal of the United Nations granted it US$185 million in damages, which was then revoked by an appeals court in Washington.
The high court will receive briefs between August and September from third parties to decide if the arbitration ruling is sufficient to concede the money to the company that managed Metrogas until 2012, or if, as the judges found last year, the question should be studied by federal court. The Supreme Court’s acceptance of the case is a negative signal for the government, because it could have denied consideration in an immediate form. The Planning Ministry didn’t give details on the issue when asked by LA NACION.
One of the attorneys representing BG, Alexander Yanos, of the firm of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, confirmed to LA NACION from New York that the Supreme Court will take the case and will listen to arguments from both sides.
Armed with the bilateral treaty on protection of investments, BG went in 2008 to UNCITRAL, the arbitration tribunal of the UN, to settle the controversy over the measures adopted five years earlier during the Argentine crisis. And while BG was asking for US$223 million, it was granted US$185 million.
In 2010, a lower court judge and then, in 2012, the appeals court in Washington, reversed this decision, finding that these kinds of cases must be settled before judges and not arbitration tribunals. In particular, the court found that BG should have run out all legal recourses in Argentina and, 18 months after a final decision, go to arbitration. However, the British group argued that to fight in local courts would have been useless because of the firm decision of the government (backed by various judges) to not penalize the state in its lawsuits against foreign investors over measures adopted during the country’s crisis.
Then, BG filed a request for “certiorari” before the Supreme Court, which yesterday was accepted. Also, the tribunal accepted that the American Association of Arbitrators, the Association of Arbitration Law Professors and Practitioners, the AWG group and the U.S. Council for International Business can file respective briefs as “friends of the court” in the coming months.
The American government has already filed its own brief last month, in which it upheld its position contrary to the arbitration ruling, which was not listened to by the court in accepting the case.
Attorney Marcelo Etchebarne, expert in debt issues, told LA NACION that “the U.S. Supreme Court, contrary to what the Solicitor General requested, and who also issued an opinion in favor of Argentina in the paris passu case, granted the appeal to British Gas for the ruling in favor of UNCITRAL; it isn’t surprising that the court is interested in an issue of international arbitration that involves sovereigns.”
On websites dedicated to juridical questions in the United States, yesterday the discussion among experts turned on the reach that the decision of the high court could have, as the court will clearly go beyond this litigation in particular, since it is ruling on the degree of legitimacy of arbitration tribunals.
Those that defend the authority of the UNCITRAL (here few cases of conflict with Argentina are concentrated, different from what happened at ICSID, the World Bank tribunal) affirmed that if the court doesn’t uphold the decision of the lower court, it will harm the validity of any other resolution through that avenue. Also, they said that in the majority of cases reviewed by the American courts, arbitration decisions were upheld without greater formality.
From the other side, the American government argued that this case will not have a “systemic” effect, because the Argentine-British treaty has particular characteristics. As such, it asked that the judges be the ones that rule on the BG complaint. A similar discussion surrounds the case of Argentina against the holdouts in New York, which has to be decided by the court of appeals.
Welche Rolle sollte die BAGEFI Bank Zürich im dubiosen Geschäft von Klagegesellschaft(en) vs Argentinien spielen
die zum Interessenbereich der ReifenindustriellenFamilie Michelin gehörende Bank BAGEFI sollte eine Schlüsselstellung in den Argentinienklagen in Frankfurt spielen. Der an den Planungen und Sondierungen beteiligte deutsche Anwalt wollte für sich (seine Familie) und die zu werbenden Mandanten die Möglichkeit erschliessen die defaulten Argentinienbonds nach deutscher Jurisdiktion in Frankfurt einzuklagen ohne das die Steuerfahndung den Inhaber/Eigentümer/wirtschaftlich Berechtigten - kurz den Steuerpflichtigen - erkennen konnte da ja in den Klageschriften die Besitzer/Inhaber genannt werden müssen.
Zu diesem Zwecke sollte z.B. eine Panama AG als Sitzgesellschaft gegründet werden die dann in ihrem Namen die Stücke einklagt. Die BAGEFI sollte bei der Gründung und Verwaltung dieser Panama AG behilflich und natürlich auch DepotBank sein.
Der Kontakt wurde von Herrn Werner C. hergestellt.
wer näheres wissen will:
rolfjkoch@web.de
Zu diesem Zwecke sollte z.B. eine Panama AG als Sitzgesellschaft gegründet werden die dann in ihrem Namen die Stücke einklagt. Die BAGEFI sollte bei der Gründung und Verwaltung dieser Panama AG behilflich und natürlich auch DepotBank sein.
Der Kontakt wurde von Herrn Werner C. hergestellt.
wer näheres wissen will:
rolfjkoch@web.de
|
Banque de Gestion Financière BAGEFIBanque de Gestion Financière BAGEFI (Headquarters)Postfach Zürich CH-8032 Schweiz/Switzerland Tel: 01 268 53 00 Fax: 01 268 53 53 |
Dienstag, 11. Juni 2013
The "chicken game" in the version of the vultures’ lawsuit
Ambito Financiero
The "chicken game" in the version of the vultures’ lawsuit
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
By Guillermo Nielsen
There is a constant in the national government’s action directed at imposing its policies that well could be compared with a game of chicken, that daredevil game dreamt up by New York suburban kids in the 1960s that, to express their non-conformity and kill their boredom, entertained themselves in the middle of the night by going at each other in two speeding cars from opposite directions until one diverts … or they crash. The driver that steers away would leave the way free for his adversary, who would go past and shout, “chicken!”, in an allusion to his alleged cowardice. Of course, when no one steered away, it would produce an accied that could cost the life of one or both of the opponents.
“Rebel Without a Cause,” the celebrated film that made James Dean a star, shows the game at its worst when Buzz (Corey Allen) dies as his car crashes, in a premonition of the way that the life of the star of the movie would end prematurely.
The concept of a face-off until the suppose cowardice of the other was incorporated into Game Theory and was applied to analyze limits in some incidents of the Cold War, or in situations in which one of the parties, even facing setbacks, opted to double the bet. Perhaps it application could be extended, for better comprehension, to the political methodology of the current government, which is characterized by always doubling its bets with its “let’s go all the way” motto, independent of what is at stake.
In these times it is worth giving a new review of the attitude adopted in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of Manhattan, where the issuing of a new ruling is approaching. At the podiums, it was possible to see that before the position of the holdouts, the government was ready not to move its positions. This is, not only not to offer anything more than what was already granted in the two previous swaps, but to offer even a little less in financial terms.
The novelty of the lower court ruling (which affects the actions of third parties involved in the payment mechanisms) and Argentina’s intransigence attracted the attention of the main financial analysts of the world, who observe how for the first time there is a kind of a game of chicken in the imperfect regulatory networks of the main financial market of the world applied to the restructuring of a sovereign debt.
In the historical perspective, Argentina missed the chance to lead the holdouts into a trap by withdrawing from the management of the debt starting at the end of 2005. It didn’t seek to drag the holdouts into a class action like it hadn’t implemented other aspects of management, like clauses of debt repurchasing committed to in the issuance prospectus.
It was all assumed that the reopening of the swap in the year 2010, which required something so institutionally extreme as the suspension of a law that impeded it (known commonly as the lock law), would be used in this sense. But no: that second swap had some very commercial singularities, with a media treatment that at times tried to rewrite recent history.
The different hearings and filings in New York court in recent months allowed for a more clear profiling of a kind of game of chicken that seemed to yield fruit in the short term, at least around the postponement of a decision while some coupons are paid. But it’s clear that the cars are at maximum speed, being driven right at each other.
As the sentence approaches, which could come out well but also could come out badly, and with the conviction that a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court present itself as very distant; the time is coming in which the government and the leading sectors of the country will be seriously thinking about the consequences of the crash, which – according to the attitude taken by Argentina – could mean exclusion, who knows for how long, from access to the New York financial market.
It’s that what is in question in Manhattan is not a question of one government, but it is a question of state, which compromises the well-being of future generations. The consequences of a scenario of exclusion from the New York financial market should be avoided at any cost.
This goes both for countries as well as big corporations. Precisely among the latter there are situations that allow clear comparison that could help us in thinking: why have companies like Siemens, Embraer or Ralph Lauren incriminated themselves in SEC filings to giving bribes? Simply because they have opted to swerve in terms of the “chicken game” to be able to continue participating in the most competitive financial market in the world, something that any nation is interested in, much more than Argentina, which has an insufficient savings system. But until now, the national government, like it has done time and again in other cases (conflict with the farmers, judicial reform), has opted only for putting the pedal to the floor.
It was there that Lucifora and Masiero, joined by a handful of people, held up their sign outside the perimeter of the square, deciding to get attention in every way.
La Nacion
Bondholder protest before the Pope
A group of Italians affected by the default tried to make themselves heard in Angelus, in St. Peter’s.
Monday, June 10, 2013
by Elisabetta Piqué | LA NACION
ROME.- A small group of Italian bondholders harmed by the default of 2001 yesterday used the noon Angelus of the Pope – which convenes some 100,000 people on St Peter’s Square – to protest against Argentina. “Pope Francis think of the Italian savings taken by Argentina”, said the sign that was held by Gianfranco Lucifora and Orlando Masiero, two Italian bondholders that are not defeated and continue demanding their lost savings.
Both rejected the “miserable” offers to swap debt in default made by the Kirchner administration in 2005 and 2010 and insist that Argentina “make available its immense wealth” to return the money that was “swindled.”
The protest lasted a short time. The Pope had not even taken to the window on the third floor of the Apostolic Palace – at 12 on the dot – when Italian police intervened for the small group to leave the square. There, in fact, it is prohibited to hold political demonstrations.
It was there that Lucifora and Masiero, joined by a handful of people, held up their sign outside the perimeter of the square, deciding to get attention in every way.
"In reality, the Pope doesn’t have anything to do with our complaint, but just as President Cristina Kirchner when she met with him made a political request for the Malvinas, we also took advantage of this moment to ask that they return our money,” said Lucifora, who lost 100,000 euros of his savings placed in Argentina bonds.
Lucifora debated with various Argentine onlookers that, when seeing the sign, came up to him to say that, in reality, the guilty ones are the Italian banks. “Swindlers!” the bondholder answered, accompanied by his sister Marisa.
"The problem is with the Argentine leadership class, not with the Pope nor with the Argentines. My family lose 850,000 euros, my parents have died already and couldn’t see their savings return, but I will fight until the end to recover them. Argentina cannot go on not paying its debt: if it continues like this, it will sink,” Masiero predicted.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)