Lead Articles: La Nacion: “The U.S. Supreme Court decides today if it takes the Argentine case” Clarin: “U.S. Supreme Court will decide today if it takes the lawsuit of the vulture funds”

Lead Articles:

 

La Nacion: “The U.S. Supreme Court decides today if it takes the Argentine case”

 

Clarin: “U.S. Supreme Court will decide today if it takes the lawsuit of the vulture funds”

 

 

La Nacion

The U.S. Supreme Court decides today if it takes the Argentine case

The court will announce the lawsuits it will take in the coming months; little likelihood in favor of the country

 

Tuesday, October 01, 2013

 

By Rafael Mathus Ruiz

 

NEW YORK.- After a lengthy debate behind closed doors, the U.S. Supreme Court will unveil today its first decision on the most complex fight of the long legal battle between Argentina and Paul Singer, owner of Elliot Management and NML Capital, already known as the "pari passu saga.”

 

The decision of the highest court of the United States will be known through the release of the list of the handful of cases that the nine justices decided to take up in their next session.

 

No one expected the Court to take, on this occasion, the Argentina case. Lawyers who closely follow the case agree that the final decision of the Court, a body divided ideologically, will arrive the next year, given the procedural timing of the case.

 

"The order will be rejected or delayed. There is no reason that the Supreme Court should take the case in this instance,” said Antonia Stolper to LA NACION, of the law firm of Shearman & Sterling, one of the law firms that is watching the case and does not represent any of the actors in the dispute.

 

If there is a refusal or delay to the petition that Argentina filed on June 24, that is something that will be known next week, when the cases which were not accepted by the judges of the Court will be known.

 

However, the decision of the judges will have more to do with procedural issues of the case than with its final determination on whether it will decide to issue its opinion or not in a fight with a high political voltage, as international agencies like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United States federal government, among others, have already offered their point of view, in lower courts.

 

The reason is that Argentina appealed the judgment that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of New York issued October 26, 2012, a ruling that the same Court upheld in its decision issued on August 23rd.

 

Between both decisions, the judges of this tribunal sent the case back to the court of Judge Thomas Griesa to specify some aspects of his legal mandate, including the method of payment and the amount that the Argentina should pay to NML Capital, Aurelius and 13 Argentine retail investors. After that step, the Court of Appeals issued its final opinion.

 

Attorneys for Argentina filed the petition to the Court before waiting of the last decision of the Court of Appeals to come out. Now, to appeal that decision, lawyers must wait for that Court to first deny a request to review the case at an “en banc” hearing, meaning with all the judges who make up the Court, and not a panel of three judges.

 

Once the Court of Appeals rejects that request (such as everyone expects), Argentina will have 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court, always on the basis of the foreign sovereign immunities act. The final decision of the highest court to that request could arrive in March of next year, or stretch out until the northern autumn of 2014.

 

 

Clarin

U.S. Supreme Court will decide today if it takes the lawsuit of the vulture funds

One possibility is that the Court will postpone consideration of the claim against Argentina, without rejecting it

 

Tuesday, October 01, 2013

 

by Ana Baron

 

Washington. Correspondent - Amid great expectations, the U.S. Supreme Court will announce today or at the latest tomorrow if it has decided to accept the case that pits Argentina against the vulture funds. What is at stake is a ruling from the Court of Appeals, which orders Argentina to pay the vulture funds 100% of what is owed them at the same time that it pays the restructured bondholders. Argentina appealed to the Supreme Court in the hope that it would reverse that ruling. According to all the experts, the probability is close to zero, but if the nine judges who make up the Supreme Court decide to accept the case, the Court will give the dates when there will be hearings to listen to the parties. The hearings must take place before June of 2014.

 

On the contrary, newly on 7 October, on its first day in session after the summer break, the Supreme Court will confirm if it has decided to reject the Argentine case or if it has chosen to postpone its decision for later on.

 

Indeed, there is the possibility of the Supreme Court deferring its decision since Argentina will file a second appeal on the same case in a couple of months. Therefore, the judges could decide that they prefer to evaluate the two appeals together.

 

Moreover, the Supreme Court can decide also ask the opinion of United States government before making a decision, which would delay further the process. In fact, given that most analysts think that the Supreme Court will not accept the case immediately, attention is being focused on what the U.S. will do if it is asked its opinion. If the United States intervened in favor of Argentina as it has already done twice, before the Court of Appeals, the chances of the Supreme Court accepting the case would increase by 50%.

 

So far the United States has refused to voluntarily ask the Supreme Court to accept the case because in general it always expected that the judges are the ones to ask its opinion. In this case, however, it is notable that the U.S. has blocked, in addition, the amicus curiae that the Monetary Fund had planned to send to the Supreme Court in favor of the Argentine appeal.

 

In fact the Court of appeals not only did not consider the arguments that the U.S. presented on behalf of Argentina but also took pains to refute them one by one. In effect the Appeals court does not believe the Argentine case will set a bad precedent for other restructurings as stated by the U.S. because it is a unique case, where the conduct of the Argentine government has had such weight that, according to the judges, it will hardly be reproduced in other countries.

 

The U.S. also argued that Griesa;s rulings violated the foreign sovereign immunities act, but the House of Deputies (sic) established that this is not true. The appeal that is at stake today is the one that Argentina filed asking the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling in which the Court of Appeals upheld on October 26, 2012 which said our country violated the clause requiring equal treatment between creditors and which therefore the vulture funds must be paid 100% of what is owed them at the same time as the restructured bondholders are paid. The second appeal refers to a second ruling in which the Appeals court upholding the payment formula and sanctions against banks that help Argentina to repay restructured bondholders if it does not pay them at the same time as the other bondholders.