Comments on: Argentina vs Elliott: It’s not about pari passu any more A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: essay writers Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:36:13 +0000 This year’s Golden Globe Award was voted the deadline in November 15th, before the World Cup qualifying play offs, which makes the C, not by virtue of its performance in the play offs Shen Yong, the competition become golden weight

By: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 15:23:16 +0000 Great website you have here but I was curious if you knew of any message boards that cover the same topics discussed in this article? I’d really love to be a part of online community where I can get feedback from other knowledgeable individuals that share the same interest. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Thanks a lot!

By: fifa 15 coins ps Thu, 25 Sep 2014 20:09:22 +0000 whoah this blog is excellent i love studying your articles. Stay up the great paintings! You know, many people are hunting around for this info, you can aid them greatly.

By: hedgeygrl Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:50:55 +0000 $5–Ah, the courage of your convictions. Come on, guys!

By: nlg64 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:55:45 +0000 While the simple old-fashioned approach is that Argentina breached, end of story. However, the dysfunction of creating a sovereign insolvency regime may open roads to additional outcomes.

The difference between pari passu and priority is important. For example, the judge may find that the IMF has priority in restructurings based on habitual international practice. Then, Argentina would not breach when not paying Elliott its haircut or when paying the IMF 100%. However, Argentina would still be breaching if it were to pay any other pre-insolvency creditor more than it is paying Elliott. More interestingly even, Argentina may breach if it it fails to comply with the IMF conditions after the restructuring under the rationale that the habitual international practice of subordinating Elliott to the IMF is conditional on Argentina’s compliance with IMF’s conditions. If the court went that far, then it would start creating some hope for an international insolvency regime with the ability to induce compliance on the debtor country. Fat chance? (nlg64 at mindspring dot com)

By: anoldbanker Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:08:01 +0000 So let’s see – Elliott (actually NML and several other creditors) “really needs” its 89 pages, yet Argentina’s 84 pages are “masterful”. You don’t mention the page count of the US amicus brief (it’s 41), but Judge Griesa’s orders are “very short” (5 and 6 pages) and thus “don’t make sense” and “are notable for their lack of legal reasoning”.

Rather than pursuing such dubious quantitative analysis, you really should put your political baggage aside and actually look at the arguments.

Argentina and its amici the US (with you cheerleading from the sidelines) are effectively attempting to re-argue the 12-year-old case of Elliott vs. Peru. Why is that ? Because of the plain and undeniable fact that by passing the “Lock Law” and formally subordinating the thousands of creditors who were unwilling to accept Argentina’s take-it-or-leave-it scalping (i.e. beyond a ‘haircut’), Argentina actually did breach the contractual promises it made to induce people to buy its bonds. The US pointedly “takes no position” on this central legal issue.

By falling for this diversionary tactic, you confuse breach with remedy. Judge Griesa found in his first order that Argentina breached its contract (no surprise there) but was then faced with the problem of fashioning a remedy. He sought further briefing and argument, and following that decided in his informed discretion to order Argentina and its agents to make equal payments. There is a very large difference between ordering an equal payment remedy as opposed to relying upon the antique equal payment interpretation of pari passu to determine breach (which Griesa did not).

Your hysterical assertion that Judge Griesa’s order would “slap an injunction on innocent bondholders of Argentina, many of whom took a 70% haircut” could not be more incorrect, although Argentina would have you think so. The order’s effect stops at the US border, and undoubtedly Minister Lorenzino and his attorneys at Cleary Gottlieb have already devised clever ways to pay exchange bondholders through other jurisdictions.

This is really not simply a war between Elliott and Argentina as you portray. There are thousands of involuntarily subordinated creditors, among them Italian pensioners and other major investors who have filed their own briefs. The real nature of this war is between Argentina and the rule of law. Doesn’t it seem right to you that if a borrower exploits US capital markets but breaches its contracts and then defiantly thumbs its nose at hundreds of US federal court judgments, it should not be allowed to further abuse the fundamental rules and principles of our system ?

You really should stop drinking the Argentine Kool-Aid. They aren’t nice people.

By: MrRFox Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:33:09 +0000 “But I have politics on my side — the United States is … siding with Argentina. Which has got to count for something.” (FS)

Are you sure it’s still so, FS?

Obama just had some critical words for Argentina over the YPF thing. A US court decision perceived as giving the gauchos a green light to welch on their debts doesn’t really fit with policy anymore, does it?

By: klhoughton Tue, 24 Apr 2012 02:19:44 +0000 “the United States is arguing with Argentina”

Uh, I think you mean “for Argentina” or “on Argentine’s side of the dispute.”

That said, distorting “rank pari passu” into “rank” should win the Humpty Dumpty Legal Argument of the Year Award.