Lead Articles:
Infobae: “Economy relativizes ruling against it in New York courts”
Perfil/Fortuna Web: “U.S. rejects Argentine appeals on payment of debt to vulture funds”
Clarin: “New ruling from New York court on vulture funds lawsuit”
Ambito Financiero: “Vulture funds: negative ruling for Argentina in New York”
El Cronista: “Economy denies rumors about adverse ruling in New York”
Infobae
Economy relativizes ruling against it in New York courts
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
The Economy Ministry came out to clash with rumors that spoke of an unfavorable ruling for the country in the case against the vulture funds.
It happens that the Court of Appeals, from which a sentence is expected about the underlying question (if the creditors have to be paid or not and how much), issued an order rejecting various presentations and appeals in the case.
That was interpreted as a ruling against the Argentine appeal of the order from Judge Thomas Griesa, who in November had ordered the country to pay 100% of the debt in cash to the holdouts. This was appealed by the country and the Court has still not ruled on it.
Through a statement, Economy “denies rumors about a ruling in New York.” “The Court of Appeals only released an order of a merely administrative type in the pari passu case, which does not impact the appeals process,” explained Finance Secretary Adrian Cosentino.
According to the government, the judge simply dismissed the first lot of appeals, which has not impact on the process against Griesa’s injunction.
In that direction, Cosentino reiterated that the order today “is a merely administrative act that has no substantial effect on the case.”
Perfil/Fortuna Web
U.S. rejects Argentine appeals on payment of debt to vulture funds
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of New York (sic) today issued a ruling on the demand for payment of Argentina’s foreign debt converted into bonds, in the hands of the vulture funds, in which it rejects the appeals and presentations made by the Argentine government against the October 26 ruling issued by Judge Thomas Griesa. In its resolution, the U.S. judge called on Argentina to pay 100% of the debts to those who had rejected the swaps of 2005 and 2010.
The high court of New York (sic) resolved to reject all of the appeals presented against its ruling, in which it condemned Argentina to pay US$1.3 billion to a group of holdouts and delegated the lower court judge Thomas Griesa the determination of the manner of payment that was then appealed by the Argentine government. The court’s rejection has effect retroactively to October, by having used the phrase “nunc pro tunc.”
While the findings of the court ruling are not yet known, it remains to be seen what the next steps will be for the investment funds and, in what measure, Griesa’s ruling will take effect, as well as what will be the next Argentine complaints before the Supreme Court of Justice of New York (sic).
Impact in the Palacio de Hacienda. Meanwhile, the Economy Ministry said tonight that “ the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of that city “only a merely administrative order in the pari passu case, which does not impact the appeals process.”
In a statement, Finance Secretary Adrian Cosentino explained that “during the process, Judge Thomas Griesa issued declaratory orders establishing that Argentina violated the pari passu clause, and then issued the order with the injunction. Both were appealed by Argentina, but for a procedural question, the second appeal (against the injunction) superseded the first (against the declaratory order).”
According to the Palacio de Hacienda, “Following the instruction imparted by the Second Circuit in its sentence of October 26, 2012, now the judge simply dismissed the first mark of appeals (against the declaratory order) which has no impact on the appeal in course against the injunction from Griesa.”
Cosentino reiterated that “the order today is a merely administrative action that has no substantial effect on the case.”
Clarin
New ruling from New York court on vulture funds lawsuit
Tuesday, July 10, 2013
In a confusing ruling that put the entire financial community on alert, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of New York (sic) set the annulling of certain appeals of the October 26 ruling that ordered Argentina to pay 100% of what the vulture funds demand who are suing the country. It is US$1.3 billion.
It is expected that the court will issue a sentence on how Argentina will have to pay to comply with pari passu (equal treatment to all the creditors) that Judge Thomas Griesa set.
The Ministry of Economy and Public Finance clarified that the Court of Appeals released “only a merely administrative order in the pari passu case, which does not impact the appeals process,” according to what Finance Secretary Adrian Cosentino explained.
In a statement, Economy explained that “during the process, Judge Thomas Griesa issued declaratory orders establishing that Argentina violated the pari passu clause, and then issued the order with the injunction. Both were appealed by Argentina, but for a procedural question, the second appeal (against the injunction) superseded the first (against the declaratory order),” they explained from the Palacio de Hacienda.
Following the instruction imparted by the Second Circuit in its sentence of October 26, 2012, now the judge simply dismissed the first mark of appeals (against the declaratory order) which has no impact on the appeal in course against the injunction from Griesa.
Ambito Financiero
Vulture funds: negative ruling for Argentina in New York
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
By Eugenio A. Bruno
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of New York today issued a ruling on the case of Argentina bonds in default. The ruling says that the court rejects the appeals and presentations made against its ruling on October 26 of last year, in which it condemned the country to pay 100% of the debts in favor of the creditors that had rejected the swaps of 2005 and 2010, and had delegated to Judge Thomas Griesa to determine the formula of payment (in one payment or staggered) as well as the application of injunctions.
In its ruling, the Court uses the Latin phrase "nunc pro tunc" which means a retroactive rejection, in this case effective from October 26.
Lastly, the court says that it will next issue a "mandate" or explicit judicial order based on the sentence of a few minutes ago.
Now it remains to be determined what the next steps are for the green light that Griesa could have both for the payment formula (100% payment) as well as injunctions (affecting Bank of New York), as well as the Argentine appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice of New York (sic).
It should be remembered that Argentina¹s presentation had exclusively dealt with two aspects of the court¹s sentence that upheld two decisions from Judge Thomas Griesa, and that in the country¹s judgment, they affected ³federal questions that can only be reviewed by the Supreme Court.²
In the first place, the brief argued that ³if a court violates the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), by executing monetary claims against a country through the granting of orders that restrict the use of its assets located not only in the U.S. but also outside of its territory, (this) supposes going beyond the scope of execution provided by law.²
The second point affirmed that ³if a federal court² could issue injunctions previous to a sentence, forcing a country to pay a purely monetary claim, it goes against the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in relation to the traditional equitable remedies not including orders designed to force payments contractually agreed to or the specific compliance of monetary obligations.²
The funds that sued Argentina for US$1.33 billion for sovereign bonds that they hold in their investment portfolios, are led by NML Capital Ltd, and Aurelius Capital Management, within a group that includes retail investors.
El Cronista
Economy denies rumors about adverse ruling in New York
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
The government denied rumors about a ruling in New York and reports that today in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of that city released ³only an order of a merely administrative kind in the pari passu case, which does not impact the appeals process,² explained Finance Secretary Adrian Cosentino.
³During the process, Judge Thomas Griesa issued declaratory orders establishing that Argentina violated the pari passu clause, and then issued the order with the injunction. Both were appealed by Argentina, but for a procedural question, the second appeal (against the injunction) superseded the first (against the declaratory order),² they explained from the Palacio de Hacienda.
Following the instruction imparted by the Second Circuit in its sentence of October 26, 2012, now the judge simply dismissed the first mark of appeals (against the declaratory order) which has no impact on the appeal in course against the injunction from Griesa, adds a statement.
In that direction, Cosentino reiterates that today¹s order is a merely administrative act with no substantial effect on the case.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen