La Nacion: “The U.S. Supreme Court postponed a decision about the lawsuit with the vultures”
Clarin: “Debt: U.S. Supreme Court postponed a decision about the Argentine case”
Ambito Financiero: “U.S. Court did not take Argentine case (but there is balloting)”
Infobae: “Boudou: "The Argentine case is not the center of the world for the U.S. Supreme Court””
El Cronista: “Foreign Ministry formalizes request for the U.S. to incorporate AMIA case in its dialogue with Iran”
OTHER NEWS ITEMS:
· Argentina’s trade deficit with Brazil ballooned by almost 400% (interannual) in September, showing a US$753 million difference for the month. It was driven by a major increase in imports from Brazil and a fall-off in exports at the same time. The Brazilian government said the month’s results were “influenced” by the continued devaluation of the Brazilian real. The deficit for 2013 stands at US$2.191 billion.
· Argentina’s perennial conflict with Uruguay over the paper pulp factory in Fray Bentos is worsening again, as Uruguay has authorized an increase in production at the facility, and Argentina continues to demand “control upon environmental impact” of the production upon the river border where the factory is located.
· La Nacion reports that the AFIP confirmed yesterday that there have been “formal talks” between it and the United States’ IRS over a tax treaty that would involve the exchange of information on bank account holdings of the citizens of each country in the banking systems of the other, in order to ensure broader tax enforcement on undeclared assets. Ricardo Echegaray traveled to Washington weeks ago to meet with the IRS and Treasury to review a draft agreement that Argentina sent in February, but has not yet received a response from the U.S. side.
TRENDING TOPICS/ARGENTINA on Twitter:
· No political topics ar trending this morning.
La Nacion
The U.S. Supreme Court postponed a decision about the lawsuit with the vultures
Did not include Argentine case among those it will take up, but it could do so next Monday; the official expectation is that it will decide to wait until it has all the appeals on the case
Wednesday, October 02, 2013
By Silvia Pisani
WASHINGTON.- In its first working day after summer recess, the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t make any decision about the “critical” petition Argentina filed for it to accept review, as a last chance, the lawsuit of the so-called “vulture funds”, a case in which the country has already accumulated two adverse rulings in lower courts.
"There was no decision, and although that surely discouraged the expectations of the Argentines, it’s not necessarily a bad thing. One has to wait,"said Craig Levy, an academic from the University of Chicago, who has been following the issue.
By the expectations of the Argentina defense, "no decision" is positive in that it maintains the stay that now reigns over adverse rulings that Argentina was already sentenced to pay. And, on the other hand, it allows the country to gain time, which is what the government is seeking.
On the other hand, the lack of definition had two effects in local circles following the case. On the one hand, it prolonged expectation until next Monday, when the rest of the agenda of the Court will be known. And the case of Argentina could enter into it at that time, while the doubts over that happening are many.
On the other hand, it buoyed the number of scenarios that can arise from here forward for the case.
In the most pessimistic scenario, there is the possibility that next Monday the court will announce that it will not take the case, reporting it officially in that way, to close the door to new reviews and the adverse rulings for the country become final.
The possibility of this happening exists. But it is not considered likely.
At the other extreme, the court could defer any decision on the facts and only consider the topic for the agenda next year, waiting for the rest of the case which is still in the New York Court of Appeals, an intermediate court. This is the scenario that the Argentine defense is betting on.
"It’s hard to know what will the Court do. My impression is that, in the end, it will not take the case. But it don’t do it now, they will wait for the rest of the case,"said Levy.
In the same line of thinking are Richard Samp of the Washington Legal Foundation - an expert on Supreme Court issues-, and Henry Weisburg, of Shearman & Sterling, who is following the case.
In the middle of these two extreme scenarios, there is also the possibility that the Court will decide to request the opinion of the U.S. government before ruling.
So far, and despite formal attempts made in this regard, the Government of Cristina Kirchner has not gotten the Barack Obama administration to commit itself to the case, now entering its decisive phase.
'Critical' situation
Last July, the defense led by Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton filed a petition that warned the nine justices that the consideration of the case was a "critical" issue for Argentina and that an adverse ruling would have an "adverse effect" on the country.
It is possible that it will happen in the future. But, so far, the argument does not seem to have convinced the judges.
In parallel, the government returned to ask for a new review by the Court of Appeals of New York.
The Court, which on two occasions has upheld the decisions by lower court Judge Thomas Griesa against the country, has not even communicated its response to that petition. But the consensus is that there is little chance it will grant it.
The case refers to claim by NML Management and Aurelius Capital, with a little more than a dozen private investors, including several Argentines.
Both Griesa and the Court of Appeals of New York understood that the Argentina is not only a "compulsive debtor", but it violated the "equal treatment" clause (called pari passu) which obliges it to "treat in an equal manner" all its creditors.
The government argues that it wants to pay. And to prove it, it abruptly opened a new chance for an exchange of debt bonds that remain unpaid. But the plaintiffs are demanding a payment greater than has been offered in these operations.
The instance that is left now is the Supreme Court. And it is still not clear what will happen there. But if the possibility does not come out well, the impression here is that there is nothing left for Argentina to do other than sit down and negotiate with its creditors.
Clarin
Debt: U.S. Supreme Court postponed a decision about the Argentine case
The government wants to reverse two rulings. For that, it also suspended the Lock Law and will offer a new swap. In the end, the High Court didn’t announce anything about the lawsuit with the vultures. Next Monday is another chance.
Wednesday, October 02, 2013
by Ana Baron
Washington Correspondent- The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday did not take the case that pits Argentina against the vulture funds. But that does not mean that it will not take it in the future.
The suspense continues. The so-called pari passu saga has an uncertain end.
The next important date is October 7. After having announced the cases that it has decided to take, among which Argentina was not listed, that day the Supreme Court will announced the ones that it will reject. The judges will also say if, in some cases, they will ask for the opinion of the government of Barack Obama through the Solicitor General.
If the name of Argentina does not appear in either of those two lists it will means that the Court has decided to postpone its decision. In that case, another important date will be October 11, the day that the nine judges of the Court will meet again. "From October 11, whenever there is a conference of the court the case of Argentina may be reassessed, but in my opinion they’re going to wait for the second appeal from Argentina to be filed,” Richard Samp of the Washington Legal Foundation told Clarin.
"Anyway, we will have to remain watchful," he added.
Indeed, what is at stake this time is a ruling from the Court of Appeals from October 26, 2012, which ordered Argentina to repay the vulture funds 100% of what it owes them at the same time that the restructured bondholders are paid. Argentina appealed to the Supreme Court in the hope that it will reverse that ruling.
Also, through its ruling on 26 October, the Appeals court opened a new judicial round by asking Judge Thomas Griesa to explain how the formula of payment and sanctions on the banks would be set out. On August 23, the appeals court had upheld that the Argentine government must pay 100% to vulture funds and to the restructured bondholders. In addition, banks that help Argentina to repay the latter without paying the former will be sanctioned.
Argentina asked the Court of Appeals to review that ruling en banc, meaning before its 13 member judges. All the expert say that it is likely that this request will be rejected. And if this is the case, then Argentina will appeal again to the Supreme Court. That is why there is talk of a second appeal. The Court of Appeals was very harsh with the Argentine government in its second ruling. It said that it was a serial debtor and strongly criticized statements by Cristina Kirchner that she was not going to pay the vulture funds a single penny. But at the same time threw her a life preserver when it imposed a stay. This means that until the second appeal eventually reaches the Supreme Court, the ruling that obliges Argentina to pay the vulture funds is not implemented.
In her speech given the day after the August 23 ruling, President Cristina Kirchner announced that she was going to reopen the swap and would offer bondholders to exchange restructured bonds for bonds issued under Argentine law. If this latest offering is officialized, the vulture funds will undoubtedly accuse Argentina of contempt of U.S. law and ask that the stay be lifted.
Ambito Financiero
U.S. Court did not take Argentine case (but there is balloting)
Wednesday, October 02, 2013
by: Carlos Burgueño
The United States Supreme Court yesterday did not include on the list of cases that it will discuss in the coming days the case of the vulture funds that are suing Argentina over the public debt in default. With this position, the status quo is maintained for a while, which could be extended by months, with which the Executive can meet the timetable for the payment of interest on debt maturities until December 31.
According to lawyers representing Argentina, from Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (CGS & H), at this point it is fundamental to get the Court to accept the case to get a gesture from the Barack Obama administration before the Court, which would justify the political and economic importance that the case against the vulture funds has for the United States. Without this intervention, which could be done voluntarily or at the request of the Supreme Court (which still hasn’t happened and is thought now to be difficult to happen), sources from the firm representing the country say that it will be difficult to get the case accepted. According to this view, what is playing against the country is no clear violation of any federal law, even in the case of Bank of New York Mellon. The second thing that does not play in Argentina’s favor are the two judgments against in in the first and second instances in the courts of New York.
Like every Tuesday, the Court issued a list of cases that will take up in the coming weeks, and the case against the vulture funds didn’t appear among them. It was clarified yesterday that there are still three more chances for making the lists of cases the Court will take, the first of which will be known next Monday, October 7.
The case is the one initiated by the vulture funds NML Capital Ltd. Elliot of Paul Singer, and EM Ltd. of Kenneth Dart, against the country for the payment of about US$1.33 billion in cash including principal and interest.
The nine justices must chose among more than 2,000 cases during its 2013-2014 work year. Argentina brought the case to this court, after a New York Appeals Court upheld in August a ruling of lower court in the charge of the Manhattan Judge Thomas Griesa that went against it . The ruling would force it to pay US$ 1.47 billion to the vulture funds, because they bought debt in default. In addition to the path to the Court, the national government appealed that ruling to the Court of Appeals of New York under the "en banc" recourse, an official strategy to win time strategy.
The funds favored by the New York court make up 7% of the creditors who rejected the exchanges on Argentine debt in 2005 and 2010, which included strong haircuts on the par value of those warrants, and longer payment terms. If the Supreme Court refuses to take up the case, the ruling from New York will remain firm, which would be seen as a bad precedent for the restructuring of sovereign debt, according to market analysts and multilateral entities like the IMF. If it takes the case, it could be months before a hearing and a final decision.
A priori, Argentina has had no luck with the current formation of the Court. Only four members are Democrats, who in theory could have a more agreeable view of the country's position. These are Ruth Bader Thomas (sic) and Stephen Breyer (appointed by Bill Clinton), Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan (Barack Obama). The rest, a majority of five, arrived at the Court in different times of Republican government: Antony (sic) Scalia and Anthony Kennedy (Ronald Reagan); Clarence Thomas (George Bush), and the current President, John Roberts, and Elena Kagan (sic) (George W. Bush).
Infobae
Boudou: "The Argentine case is not the center of the world for the U.S. Supreme Court”
Wednesday, October 02, 2013
The Vice President referred this way to the lack of definitions from the highest American court about the Argentine case against the holdouts. He didn’t rule out that it will take the case in the future: “They meet every Monday,” he said. He also asked that the “dramatism” of the issue be lowered.
Boudou argued that while the lawsuit against the vulture funds in the United States is “important” for Argentina, it’s not seen as the “center of the world” for the Supreme Court of that country, and asked that the “dramatism be taken out” of the fact that the court postponed its decision on the case.
The Vice President said that the members of the American court “will meet every Monday” starting now, after the stare of the 2013 judicial year, by which on the day after each meeting news could come out about if the court accepts or rejects the Argentine case.
"It has said nothing about the Argentine case, if it denied nor accepted,” he said in statements to C5N. “It’s neither definitive nor decisive at this time,” alluding to the U.S. high court postponing its decision. He also said there are still “various round” left to go through.
Boudou explained that the American court receives some 8,000 petitions each year and only accepts 80 cases, and said that both the national economic team and the attorneys representing the country in the United States “are working very hard” for Argentina to obtain a favorable ruling.
"It’s an important case for us,” the Vice President concluded.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen