MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina appeals to US Supreme Court its legal battle with ‘holdout’ creditors
Argentina took on Tuesday its legal battle with “holdout” creditors to the US Supreme Court by appealing an adverse decision handed down by a lower US court in October of last year, according to Telam the official news agency from the Argentine government. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment ruleseh
Jun 26th, 2013 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Didn't the supreme court say they weren't interested in taking the case?
“They believe that if U.S. courts force Argentina to fully repay the remaining creditors, it would make it virtually impossible for other countries to restructure debts they can no longer afford to pay.”
Jun 26th, 2013 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0That is the stupidest and weakest statement I ever heard. All they have to do is re-word the contracts. This will apply to bond contracts as they are written in Argentina's case.
And,
I find it highly unlikely that SCOTUS will even touch this case. Apparently Argentina is worried.
This article is as clear as mud.
Jun 26th, 2013 - 02:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0There was a judge Griesa and there was a judge Reena Raggi. There was 1.3B$ and there was something about paying holdouts every time the non-holdouts were paid.
WHICH is WHICH in this article?
And WHICH court case is awaiting the outcome of WHICH other court case?
The Argentine lawyers told Reena Raggi they weren't going to pay no matter what the ruling. Is that the court case that the Writ is being filed for?
@3 Right. This “started” with the case before Judge Thomas Griesa of the US District Court where he ruled that argieland had to pay the “holdout” creditors at the same time as it paid those creditors that accepted the debt restructuring. That judgement still stands, although the judge was asked to define any “payment plan”. The matter was appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals where it was heard by Judge Reena Raggi. It was there that argieland said it wouldn't “voluntarily” pay. Argieland offered a “deal” and it was there that Judge Raggi asked “So the answer is you will not obey any order but the one you propose?” So the ”Griesa“ case is awaiting the outcome of the ”Raggi“ case. If the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals rules that the ”Griesa” judgement is valid, there is a distinct likelihood that argieland will have lost. After all, it voluntarily issued the relevant bonds under New York law. There is no obligation on the Supreme Court to hear the case. I would guess that if Judge Griesa's judgement stands and argieland refuses to comply, it can say goodbye to issuing any more bonds under US law. But that's just a guess.
Jun 26th, 2013 - 09:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you!
Jun 26th, 2013 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0So, Judge Raggi (2nd Court of Appeals) will decide whether the “Griesa” (US District Court-NY) judgement is valid. The “Griesa” judgement is that Argentina has to pay “holdouts” when it pays the “restructured” bond holders.
If Raggi rules that the Griesa judgement was valid, then Griesa would define a “payment plan”.
The Writ to the U.S. Supreme Court is about the Griesa ruling, but not about the “payment plan”.
Do I understand this correctly?
You can see from the ludicrous statement by Argentina’s Economy Ministry that they expect these bonds to be considered in a different way to 'normal' bonds in that “It’s hard to conceive of an issue that’s more irritating to a foreign state and the international community than an order from the court of one country to another country regarding topics that go to the heart of the definition of sovereignty.”
Jun 26th, 2013 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unravelling that little nugget: if we (The Dark Country) want to screw you by disregarding contract terms you cannot do anything about it because it was a sovereign debt.
Commercial paper would love that definition to be true. The Dark Country clearly gave up their sovereign rights (if they ever exist) in order to attract investors who were wary of the despicable country not paying what they said they would pay. Now, because the banks accepted the cut (along with the public who could not fight them) The Dark Country demanded that the rest of the debt holders lost the contract terms holding The Dark Country to account. Banks got their money back from their depositors and couldn’t give a damn about the others.
The ridiculous argument regarding ongoing defaults has already been dealt with satisfactorily in reality and I do not understand the position of the US on this matter.
It is to be hoped that the SCOTUS does not take the case which after all has already been judged correctly by the lower courts.
This is a contract dispute with 200 years of case law behind it. It has nothing to do with Sovereignty.
Jun 26th, 2013 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the end Argentina will have to pay
It is clearly a delay tactic
but I think SCOTUS will reject it quickly and Arge will have to abide by the NY Courts ruling or face contempt.
Their biggest problem is that they have not got the money to pay it with.
Jun 26th, 2013 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Know little about contract or civil law but it seems to me they have been and can continue to tie this up in court for years.
Jun 26th, 2013 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They against all legal advice have stated in court that they have no intention of obeying the ruling anyway. From my experience with judges, they act decisively and firmly with those who show contempt for their rulings.
Why would Americas most senior judges hear a case that technically is in contempt before it even starts.
Two things are blatantly obvious.
The Supreme Court will not hear the appeal.
The only people making money from this as always, will be the advocates!
9. If SCOTUS turns down the appeal Arg has reached it's last venue with the next ruling from NY Courts,
Jun 26th, 2013 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They are at the end of the road
Why did they issue the bonds within NY law if they are a sovereign nation?
Jun 26th, 2013 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0RC there will be nothing left after SCOTUS to tie up in court......that is the last stand.
Jun 26th, 2013 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 011. Because nobody would have bought them under Rg law.
Jun 26th, 2013 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cap
Jun 26th, 2013 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So it's all down to Scotus. If they refuse to hear the appeal, which surely must, but you can never tell, that's it.
All irrelevant in any case, has they have already stated they will not abide the decision if it goes against them.
They have committed commercial suicide, who is going to trade with them if they ignore the rule of law?
Wonder if Repsol are paying attention, or for that matter even care?
@5 Close. It's for argieland to offer a “payment plan” that the plaintiffs and the judge find acceptable. The plaintiffs want the money. Argie offers of deferred payments and more bonds won't swing it. Argieland is trying to get the Supreme Court to override everyone and make its own decision. However, the Supreme Court is likely to have confidence in the subordinate courts and is unlikely to overrule their judgements unless their are obvious deficiencies. I agree with yankeeboy. US courts are not like argie courts. Despite US government briefs as “a friend of the court”, US courts will concentrate on the issues.
Jun 26th, 2013 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@11 yankeeboy has given you the answer. The bonds were underpinned by the honest US law and judicial system. Can't find that in argieland.
Then the U.S. law has to treat the matter honestly.
Jun 26th, 2013 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the Argentine Govt. wanted sovereignty then they shouldn't have done business in another country.
If they had to do business through NY then they “had” to forfeit their sovereignty in that matter.
What, they get to tell NY how it will be? Of course not, NY has sovereignty in NY.
Did they stipulate when they issued the bonds that their sovereignty will be paramount if there are any problems? Of course they didn't.
I think Raggie will probably uphold Griesa's ruling mainly because of the Argentine defense's attitude.
Then I think the left side of the US Supreme Court, being activist and extra-constitutional, will want to step in and reverse it. Their thinking will be based on the global impact of the decision, not that they are paid to consider the globe, but they will. I could be wrong.
16 bushpilot
Jun 26th, 2013 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I think the left side of the US Supreme Court, being activist and extra-constitutional, will want to step in and reverse it”
I agree with you. I think it is highly likely that the Supreme Court will hear the RG appeal. At this level there is a political / international relations dimension to the matter.
The Obama administration can sit back and take all the time they want to decide if the SC should take on the case or not. That is a far more useful lever than suing them for money they are not going to pay.
This will provide the right outcome: restructured bond holders continue to get paid in USD and NML gets naught.
RC yes is is all down to SCOTUS. There is not legally left and I do not think that they will accept this case.
Jun 26th, 2013 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0bushpilot, while you are correct that there are 4 AJ considered left and 4 considered right with one moderate, one never really knows how they will rule as history has shown that. However I find it highly unlikely they they will get a majority to decide to accept the case. It is basic contract law and Argentina waived their sovereignty. If the world wants to give bankruptcy protections to nations, it must be done with treaties and all nations being a signatory to it. Until that happens, Argentina is subject to the laws in which they signed a debtors contract.....New York State.
17. The Executive branch has no bearing on what SCOTUS cases are taken up.
Jun 26th, 2013 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is not a political case.
And even if it was Argentina is on the outs at the moment and won't be back in until CFK is gone.
19 yankee
Jun 26th, 2013 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The Executive branch has no bearing on what SCOTUS cases are taken up”
That is not entirely true. The Chief justice is nominated by the president (so there is some executive influence right there) and the Solicitor General is the official representative of the executive before the SC. These two individuals have more influence than anyone else as to which cases are granted a hearing.
If Argentina is “on the out” that would be good reason to punish them by having the Solicitor General take months over whether a petition should be granted.
When a country is in the dock it is inevitable that the case acquires a political dimension.
#20.......they also have to be approved by the senate made up of both parties. Perhaps you don't know that presidents come and go and SCJ are around forever. Perhaps you should research justices nominated by presidents and how they have voted. It may enlighten you of your bias of their biases in your mind.
Jun 26th, 2013 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You should stay away from wikipedia.......the SG has nothing to do with chossing cases nor the president. The SG determines with cases the US Government will apply to SCOTUS.....not pick them. Cases are picked by a majority vote of the justices themselves.
21 Poppy,
Jun 27th, 2013 - 12:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Perhaps you don't know that presidents come and go”
Actually I had noticed that.
“the SG has nothing to do with chossing cases “
Well the evidence says differently. Of cases submitted to the SC, the ones submitted by the SG have a disproportionately high chance of being selected. There are many theories why, but none the less it happens. The executive always has routes into the judiciary at the highest levels. I am not criticising or being biased, it is just the way the world works.
Odds are 1% (100 to 1) the Supreme court will take this case.
Jun 27th, 2013 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you feeling lucky punks???
The vast amount of cases involve the government, it does not mean that the government submitted. You watch too much utube and read too much wikipedia. I could really care less what you think as I am not looking to re-tool your conspiratorial frame of mind. Being SA I understand your POV.
Jun 27th, 2013 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yankeeboy is like a robot and a basic one at that.
Jun 27th, 2013 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0He knows nothing about law,if he doesn't know that it is not written by the gods.But he does think the gods wrote it,(through the bodies of world finance and he thinking they are all powerful and that they are as stupidly robotic as he)
Ah well
25 Yuleno:
Jun 27th, 2013 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Everything you say could well be true but since you havn't addressed any of his points with anything specific how are we to know? Otherwise it's just another rant about... something: n'est pas?
@17 Your concept of the “right outcome” is quite wrong. Argieland never had any intention of paying the bondholders for the complete term. It couldn't issue the bonds under argie law because no-one would have bought them. So it grabbed the money and then defaulted. It didn't “negotiate” a restructuring. It “forced” one. Who in their right mind would accept their investment value being reduced by 70%? Fortunately, and I say that advisedly, there was, and is, a small group with enough money to challenge argieland to comply with its obligations. There can be NO DOUBT about this. NML and the like have the bonds. And that is all that is required. For argieland to comply with its legal obligations. How NML et al acquired the bonds is not an issue. All the rest of argieland's “arguments” are just wriggling. Argieland's lawyers neglected to include a collective action clause. Thus, it could not force the holdouts to take part in the restructuring. It enjoyed the benefits of New York law and access to New York capital markets. Now it has to bear the burdens. That's FAIR!!
Jun 27th, 2013 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@20 Once a Supreme Court judge is appointed, they have life tenure. There appears to be minor, but important, differences to the Chilean Supreme Court. Quote: “Once appointed, a Chilean Supreme Court justice is extremely difficult to remove from office. Justices are entitled to remain on the Court until the compulsory retirement age of 75. Otherwise, a justice can be removed only if he or she incurs in ”notorious abandonment of duty“ established in the Constitution.” So, in theory, the President could change the Constitution and then use that to remove a judge. The U.S. Executive can't do that.
@25 You don't know anything about “law” either. And how is your “comment” not “stupidly robotic”? What is its contribution to a debate? The answer is NONE! There is a robot called ASIMO. But I doubt you could match it!
26#
Jun 27th, 2013 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Judging from your title you should not require further explanation.But as you require some,let me just highlight that yankeeboy works in the opposite way.He thinks because the vulture funds appear to him to be in a strong position support in interpreting the law will support them.That is not a correct position to take.
For yankeeboy,Elliot were within the law seizing Libertad.Now quite clearly he was uncontroversially wrong,but never admitted it.
He was wrong when he thought he was right and posted with that certainty.That weakness is here as well.He thinks he knows the outcome.Not by using legal skills but by estimating the balance of power.
Is that of any help?
27 Conqueror:
Jun 27th, 2013 - 12:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So far it seems the New York courts agree with you - the Vulture Funds are within their legal rights to be paid at the same time as the creditors who took a ' haircut '. But morally? NML represent capitalism at it's most cynical and predatory.
I have little sympathy for the Argentine Govt - you're quite right, they specifically sought credit in New York to convince investors of their trustworthiness and they are not so naive as to believe that the current situation could not occur if they reneged on their debt - there is nothing new about vulture funds even if the term is new. But I wouldn't be at all bothered if they didn't receive a dime, cent, pfennig or sou.
29 Heisenbergcontext
Jun 27th, 2013 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are either out of touch or very high minded and I really don't GAF which it is as they are both wrong.
What about the small investors, especially the Italians who put there life savings into these bonds? I suppose you “wouldn't be at all bothered if they didn't receive a dime, cent, pfennig or sou” either?
Idiots like you who are too lazy to investigate things but are quick to judgement play into the hands of these argie crooks: in fact they rely on the likes of you being fooled.
27 Conqueror
Jun 27th, 2013 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Heisenbergcontext at 29 summarises my views on the situation with NML.
Regarding the Argie default, there is nothing unique about the way investors have been treated. Investors in other similar defaults have had similar treatment, i.e. Greek and Russian defaults. Argentina is paying back the restructured bond holders and it is right that that should continue. NML (who are owed almost nothing) threaten to jeopardise the current restructured payments. That is why I think it would be right for NML to get nothing.
Supreme court differences aside, the point I am making is that the executive can, when they need to, exert influence on the highest courts here, in the UK or in the US. There is nothing wrong with the executive making clear to the court that a case has implications beyond the narrow context in which the court would otherwise view it. Point in case would be Pinochet under arrest in the UK in 1998/1999/2000. In the narrow legal context it was simple, he was wanted for murder in Spain and he should have been extradited. But would it have been right that a key ally of the UK in the 1982 conflict, be shipped off to Spain that way? Clearly the British government thought not, Jack Straw stepped in and overruled the House of Lords.
24 Poppy
“You watch too much utube and read too much Wikipedia” – no I don’t.
There are volumes of academic studies that demonstrate the fact that the SG always beats the odds getting his cases before the SC. There is nothing conspiratorial about that.
PS: If I did have a “conspiratorial frame of mind” I would be unlikely to trust Wikipedia, would I not?
30 Chris
If NML wins the small investors will go from getting 30% of their money back to getting 0% of their money back, while NML will get all their money back many times over.
31 Condorito
Jun 27th, 2013 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please provide the link to support that statement because I must have missed it. Have NML bought out the Italian class action people then?
And the judgement by the lower court clearly encompassed all bond holders.
28 Yuleno:
Jun 27th, 2013 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for replying and expanding your original post. I'm much dumber than my user id seems to suggest to you - something Chris seems to agree with you on. I've yet to learn how to read minds, try as I might.
30 Chris R.
That's quite an extrapolation you've made. I think anyone who actually lent Argentina money and doesn't receive a 100% return on their investment has every right to feel aggrieved. NML didn't lend money to anyone.
The problem I have with the vulture funds is this: what service do they provide? They buy distressed debt that the original creditor is desperate to unload so they get at least SOME return on their investment. NML is so wealthy that they can easily take a hit on the $51 Mill it cost them. They can wait 10 years ( or longer ) to start collecting. They can afford to hire the slickest lobbyists, lawyers and P.R. firms in D.C. and N.Y.
They are gamblers with the largest stake at the table and the deck is stacked in their favour. I have no idea how the appeals court will rule and Judge Griesa's ruling certainly seems legally defensible so if it's upheld what happens to the smaller investors? Everyone knows that Argentina will never pay the vulture funds and paying the investors who took the haircut outside of New York presents huge difficulties. I actually think it's in Argentina's interests to pay ALL of the debt and be done with it but they never will.
Chris,
Jun 27th, 2013 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Griesa’s ruling froze payment to the restructured investors until Elliott gets paid. The second circuit court is yet to rule. If they agree that Elliott should get paid (which is very likely) Argentina will walk away and/or offer the restructured investors some even more worthless Argie bonds. The Argies are expecting to lose at the second circuit so they have filed for the supreme court to hear the case.
There is a good summary in the FT:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/75f6b0a2-9936-11e2-8dc6-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2XRbGvtWa
@29 Then I question your “morals”. Let's take this from the top. The initial default took place at the beginning of 2002. Argieland wanted to refinance its debt. As it started the restructuring, it would have been aware of the status of many of the investors, i.e. many of them private citizens in Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan and the U.S. and other countries, who had invested their savings and retirement pensions in debt bonds. I say that it calculated that such people didn't have the resources to challenge what argieland intended to do. Start from there. Who has the moral high ground? Enter the hedge funds. Who BUY the bonds of the small percentage who don't want to accept the argie “haircut”. Logic dictates that the hedge funds paid more than argieland was offering. Therefore the money loaned to argieland became hedge fund money. The hedge funds have title to the bonds and therefore have all the entitlement that the original bondholder had. Try this. The original bondholder is Signor Lupi. He decides to sell his bonds, quite legally, to Signor Delrio. Should Signor Delrio have less rights than Signor Lupi? Of course not. Replace Signor Delrio with a hedge fund and, all of a sudden, it's “morally” wrong? I don't think so. I suggest that your “perception” is based, in large part, on CFK's rantings about “vulture” funds. She doesn't really have a legal leg to stand on. But what upsets her is that she's been caught out. And by someone with the muscle to make it stick. Had she and hubby dealt honestly and fairly with the bondholders, none of this would have happened. It is only their sharp practice that has created the situation.
Jun 28th, 2013 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0@31 There is something “unique” about how the bondholders were treated. There was no “negotiation” about the restructuring, as there should have been. The bondholders were simply told “This is the deal. Take it or leave it”. Even the Italian government lobbied against it!
35 Conqueror:
Jun 28th, 2013 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First of all I don't I don't speak Spanish ( or whatever variation of which CFK speaks ) so I don't listen to a word she says about anything. When translated into English I usually assume that whatever she asserts is the truth the reality is likely the complete opposite.
It was actually the work of one particular economics journalist that made reconsider my attitude to the Vulture Funds - my attitude previously was pretty much the same as yours. I don't have any problem with the mythical Signor's Delrio & Lupi selling their bonds to a hedge fund, I do, however, have a problem with Paul Singer converting his $53 million into $1.4 billion merely through the act of purchasing those same bonds and the hell with the consequences for anyone else. You're not under the illusion that NML is doing this out of a desire to pursue Truth, Justice and the American way are you?
Yeah the vulture funds surely have muscle but CFK and her cheerleaders are both perverse and stubborn to the bitter end and equally indifferent to whatever consequences other parties may suffer. They've defied the courts before and I have no doubt will continue to do so. So I ask again - what happens to the other bond holders?
Try this from the top.
Jun 28th, 2013 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Forget the morals and look at the logic
I have bonds which are currently valued at 50c.i bought them for 95c with a face value of 100c
Logically I've made a bad investment.I was meaning to save money and earn a little bit for taking the risk.The risk involved was reflected in the price of the bond.I thought I was broke, then along came this guy who offered to give me 55c.Why did he do that?Because he was going to get his friends to go around with the heavies to threaten the borrower.All within the law if he can persuade the borrower to threaten someone else to fund the payment of an amount above what others were getting.More fools those who settled at a lower amount in the interests of global capitalism?
In the end Argentina will pay the holdouts. If CFK had a brain cell she would have negotiated with them when BCRA had reserves.
Jun 28th, 2013 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I imagine the final payment will come from a new Prez.
I hope this hag is retired before she drags 40MM+ people into poverty.
Rumor is that there is no bread on the shelves...
Yankee the stores are still managing ok in the larger areas, especially like Buenos Aires, primarily the city.
Jun 28th, 2013 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well it would behoove the gov't to keep large population centers stocked for as long as possible.
Jun 28th, 2013 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We'll see how long it lasts they say they'll be out of wheat in August.
Conqueror,
Jun 28th, 2013 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I like this analogy:
“If the US government ordered a car company to recall every vehicle of a certain model on safety grounds, warned the public not to drive it, yet some people still insisted on buying them and driving them and then suffered fatal crashes, do those defiant buyers not bear some responsibility for the outcome of their risky actions?”
yankee
The price of flour has doubled in a year. Yesterday the government launched “pan popular” to bring the price of bread down. Flour mills have to sell flour at cost price to the bakeries. To achieve a shortage of flour in a country that is basically a farm takes special talent.
Again, on yankeeboy's say so,Argentina will payout to the vulture funds. Logic,morals or wishful thinking? Cancel the appeal,let's put our trust in yankeeboy! Ha ha
Jun 28th, 2013 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#41 no, because if they were ordered to be recalled they should not be on the market for sale. It is the manufacturers responsibility to ensure they are not sold.
Jun 28th, 2013 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#42 Yankee expresses his opinion. Free thinking is something that really annoys the shit out of you doesn't it? Why is that that? Free thinking....expressive thought, personal opinions are against your regimes?
Yankee is correct. In the end, holding out will do more damage to Argentina than the short term gains (that have long ended). If the great cuntface of argentina, aka kirchner, has the reserves that she lies about, pay that small amount as it will open the doors to DFI that is currently eluding Argentina in the Oil business, industrial sector. She would not have to turn her citizens into criminals like drugs dealers for having a fucking dollar in their possession.
So yulena, continue to show your brilliance by insulting yankee for expressing free speech, personal opinions and most of all....reality. You would be more credible to counter his points then the typical trollism insults.
@38 if Argentina pays the holdouts, wouldn't the other bondholders ask for the 100% of the value of the bonds (or at least as much as we end up paying the holdouts)?
Jun 28th, 2013 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yul is mad because I am usually right in the long term.
Jun 28th, 2013 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am kinda shocked CFK has been depreciating the gov't controlled U$ exchange rate so quickly. I can't wait to see what happens after the elections!
I wish the blue dollar would climb again!!
Jun 28th, 2013 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If TMBOA does not pay ANYBODY then the small investors are no worse off.
Jun 28th, 2013 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Given The Dark Country has very little liquidity in its assets it cannot pay.
So if they pay only those who “accepted” the haircut TMBOA will be in contempt of the court and so will the agents who disburse the money: so that will never happen either.
This is what TMBOA has been waiting for, she can (in her mind) go to the worlds press and claim The Dark Country are UNABLE to pay and everybody will accept that.
46. The blue dollar is not being reported any longer. It is too dangerous, it has gone underground with tourists exchanging directly with hotels, taxi drivers, restaurants, retailers. That is how it was when I lived there.
Jun 28th, 2013 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think the going rate is 10/1 now.
@36 Oh dear. Signors Lupi and Delrio aren't “mythical”. They are members of the Italian “Cabinet”. It's why I selected their names. Your only question. Why should the haircutted bondholders suffer any more? Argieland is still obliged to pay them. But they've “accepted” the argie fraud. So let them take the peanuts.
Jun 28th, 2013 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@41 Not a true analogy. If the argie government ordered every financial institution not to reveal that the government was committing fraud on an international scale, where is the fault? Sorry, dearie, the argie criminal “government” IS responsible. And so are the argie “people”. Because they should have removed the “criminal government”. They are complicit. Otherwise known as “equally guilty”. With a very few exceptions (such as Simon 68,) argies should be exterminated. Never mind their claims to be “human” or “people”. They are VERMIN. Argies have a clear link to nazi war criminals. And not only a link. Attitude, actions, beliefs.
Bottom line. CFK is a disgusting, buttfuck-accepting, deep-throat swallowing, leg spreader. But who'd want to? Except “limp” Pepe?
Yankeeboy
Jun 28th, 2013 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is the long term the same as eventually?
Eventually takes for ever because eventually is never now.
But it doesn't matter because what you do is nag like an unwanted acquaintance
Does the exchange rate have a positive or negative role in Elliot getting money from Argentina?
49 Conqueror:
Jun 29th, 2013 - 06:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0In the context in which you originally used their names Signor's Lupi & Delrio are in indeed mythical.
As to your vivid description of CFK's sex life I think you've been misinformed - I reckon the only things that turn her on are counting her money and expanding her shoe collection. If she is indeed more active then I suggest a leather dominatrix outfit and a stockman's whip would be more to her taste ( or maybe I'm just channeling BK's fantasies ).
If indeed she enjoy's a spot of oral sex, sodomy and the good old fashioned missionary position I can only salute her broadmindedness and admire her flexibility. To each their own I say!
Main Entry: eventually [ih-ven-choo-uh-lee] Show IPA
Jun 29th, 2013 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Part of Speech: adverb
Definition: in the course of time
Synonyms: after all, at last, at the end of the day, finally, hereafter, in future, in the end, in the long run, one day, someday, sometime, sooner or later, ultimately, when all is said and done, yet
Notes: eventually means 'finally, at a future point in time'; ultimately means 'last, final, or furthest in some projected scheme or time frame'
As I said, in the end Argentina will pay the holdouts but probably after CFK is “retired”.
The exchange rate is irrelevant to the holdouts. I just like discussing it because it is fascinating how “a people” can be so retarded as to elect poor gov't over and over and over and over again.
My guess is Rgs are too dumb to realize that Marxists can't run economies.
Everyone knows there will be a HUGE devaluation after the elections it is just a a matter of how much and when.
You should stock up on sugar, laundry detergent and dried soup. It will make you rich in pesos anyway and maybe you can trade it for a liter of gas?
I know what will happen I just don't know when. If I knew when I'd be a billionaire.
Excellent revelations yankeeboy.Couldnt do it without you.Could I?
Jun 29th, 2013 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The problem with talking about things you like talking about is it eventually becomes repetitive and ,therefore not talking but repeating.
The other problem is, of what interest is it to the decision the court has to make?
As much as any sexual habits of the judge has in the initial judgement made in NY. None.
Eventually you'll get it though.
Jun 29th, 2013 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My posts are pretty accurate even over the long haul, I think if you “invested” in sugar when I told you too you'd be up 200%!! It is hard to get that kind of return on the NYSE!
I'm just waiting for a 3 week cold snap to bring down CFK. It's not like Arg has a good track record of Presidents making it through their 2nd term.
54 yankeeboy
Jun 29th, 2013 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not really much fun besting an argie idiot though is it?
Why does he keep repeating things? :o)
Sometimes it makes me sad they are so stupid.
Jun 29th, 2013 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@51 Couldn't comment on the shoes. But I understand she owns at least 200 “little black dresses”. Now that quantity takes time to accumulate. So, how long before hubby croaked did she know? After all, word is he used to hit her. Probably well-deserved based on her recent performance.
Jun 30th, 2013 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@56 Don't be sad. It's all to do with antecedents. This is an excellent example of why one shouldn't cross-breed Germans, Italians and Spaniards. Germans, of course, are very efficient but militaristic. Italians don't even know what “efficient” means. The last time that Italians had any meaningful military ability was around the third century. And what do Spaniards bring to the mix? Pride, stupidity and cowardice. What do you do with a failed experiment? You shut it down, remove the detritus and shove it where it can't hurt anyone and will rot away.
It will all go up yours and not hurt,along with much more Conker.
Jun 30th, 2013 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@52 “I just like discussing it because it is fascinating how “a people” can be so retarded as to elect poor gov't over and over and over and over again.”
Jun 30th, 2013 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have you ever thought we don't have much choice? The Peronists control everything, inside and out! Any decent politician gets eaten by the sharks before he can set foot inside a political party!
#59 I know that is the problem. The must be some action that can be taken to remove them like the previous protests, only focusing on removal of the politicians with signs and chants so they know what the peoples positions are. They always claim ignorance....“what are they protesting about?”
Jun 30th, 2013 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@52 thank god for your analysises. looking thru threads for an update from you!
Jun 30th, 2013 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@58 Yuleno:
Jun 30th, 2013 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What will go up what and not hurt? Tell us more!!!
@59 MagnusMaster:
Yes I have considered the paucity of choices available to you - it will take leaders of considerable integrity and courage to effect change. I sympathize.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!