US Supreme Court hears 2002 case of BG Group against Argentina

Wednesday, December 4th 2013 - 02:42 UTC

Full article 2 comments

The US Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday in the case of a British company embroiled in a legal battle with Argentina, with justices mulling the question of whether an arbitration tribunal has jurisdiction to punish a sovereign state in favor of a private company. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules

Conqueror
Thoughts. “BG argued the decision to freeze prices violated a 1993 bilateral treaty between Britain and Argentina”. Nothing new there. Argieland ALWAYS violates treaties, agreements and contracts. Is there any argie coon that can provide a list of treaties, agreements or agreements with which argieland has fully complied?

“At Monday's hearing, counsel representing Argentina, Jonathan Blackman, argued that the dispute should be resolved in Argentine courts.” Argieland doesn't have any “courts”. What happens is that plaintiff files a case. Relevant argie government “ministry” considers the case and decides whether current “legislation” is adequate for the case to fail. If not, new retrospective legislation is urgently drafted and “decreed” by the chief crook. Problem “solved”. Not forgetting the “bent” judges.

“The Supreme Court could yet hear another case related to the Argentina default. Argentina is expected to appeal a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that requires the country to pay 1.33 billion to bondholders who refused to participate in two debt restructurings following the default.” We know, don't we? Have we actually managed to figure why argieland thinks it shouldn't pay bondholders who declined to be ripped off? Isn't there some way that the US Supreme Court can be made aware that the majority of the world wants to see argieland made to pay? In the great scheme of things, a “sovereign” country should adhere to the highest possible standards of probity. A country that doesn't adhere to that should lose its “sovereignty”. It doesn't deserve it. Germany was sovereign until 1933. Then it became criminal. Can the US Supreme Court not recognise that argieland has been criminal since 2003 and should be treated accordingly? Don't get bogged down in abstruse legal pros and cons. Argieland is GUILTY. No matter what. Just figure out enforceable, painful judgements.
Dec 04th, 2013 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
Pete Bog
I thought Argentina was supposed to take energy firms to court for drilling round the Falklands, (i.e. for performing a legal act), so we keep hearing from these grandiose announcements and press releases.

It seems instead, energy firms are taking Argentina to court without first announcing it in the world press.

I haven't heard one oil executive that has been a victim of Argentine 'Law' yet.

But, this is not the first time Argentina has been taken to court.

Is this a modern version of the boy (lady) who cried Wolf?
Dec 04th, 2013 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
-+

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!