MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, September 27th 2022 - 20:57 UTC

 

 

Kicillof meets Pollack requests 'stay' injunction to pay bondholders

Tuesday, July 8th 2014 - 08:10 UTC
Full article 16 comments

Argentine Economy Minister Axel Kicillof held Monday afternoon a meeting that lasted almost four hours with the Special Master appointed by US Judge Thomas Griesa, Daniel Pollack, and requested that an injunction allowing Argentina to pay bondholders be reinstated while negotiations with holdouts developed. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • willi1

    silly babble of the boy-minister kicillof.
    always and always the same silly babble.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 09:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    How many times, do they think that you can make the same application to the same judge? Denied means just that, denied!

    What the hell are their lawyers advising them?

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yankeeboy

    They still don't realize they lost. Unless NML agrees to a stay they're not going to get one.

    I think the Rg ministers are so arrogant it makes the stupid.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 09:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    We can just imagine how the conversation went:

    Kickitoff: “We DEMAND that Griesa withdraws his meddlesome statements and allows us to pay the bondholders who agreed to the offer bt Argentina and have been happy to get their payments on time until now.”

    SM Pollack: “Please confirm to me Mr. Kickitoff: have you ever read the judgement and do you understand what it means?”

    Kickitoff: We DEMAND that Griesa withdraws his meddlesome statements BEFORE I answer any more questions!”

    SM Pollack: “You have yet to answer the first question Mr. Kickitoff and I cannot carry on with assuming you know what all of this means because your tantrum at the UN when you derided the US and blamed Judge Griesa, who I represent, for all of the trouble that The Dark Country has ever had, AND by the way; there are NO Malvinas. Do you wish to answer the first question now?”

    Kickitoff: “YOU LOT are always against us just because we are a bunch of crooks and no respectable country will even lend us any money, not even our so called friends in SA. I’m going home to kick the cat!”

    The Dark Country later made a statement saying that the talks had gone well and SM Pollack had made an offer to personally settle the debt providing we keep Minister Kickitoff the “hell away from me for all time”.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yankeeboy

    It was reported that wannabe Elvis was banging on the table, screaming and ended up leaving in tears at the last IDB meeting.
    My friends at the Int'l banks say they are preparing for an Arg default.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    I wonder which part of the word “No” Kicillof doesn't understand. Reading this, Axel? This is the way it works. You start by transferring US$3 billion to your New York bank. The bank pays the “holdouts”. Then, when the “holdouts” inform Judge Griesa that all is well, the bank pays the other bondholders. Should all be done in a week or less.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • owl61

    I continue to believe as follows.
    As the Elliot plaintiff case is not yet a final judgment , pari passu aspect notwithstanding, an offer to pay 100% to the holdouts would apparently trigger the RUFO clause in the substitute bonds requiring 100% of the original debt to be paid to them , too. Accordingly, no offer of settlement can or will be made whereby the holdouts will receive more than the approximate 25% that was agreed to be paid to the substitutes.
    However, an agreement allowing a judgment for the full amount owed to the holdouts to be entered now with a stay of execution until expiration of RUFO in Dec 2014 may be a mechanism whereby this matter may be resolved without triggering RUFO. Such a settlement would provide for an immediate payment of x (not more than 25%, but enough to compensate the holdout lawyers) together with a proviso that the judgment may be satisfied if x amount (more than 25%) is paid post Dec 2014 in some form over time.
    Concurrently with this resolution of the Elliot plaintiffs, the non-plaintiff holdouts must be herded together (now underway as reported in today's BA Herald) to agree upon a similar substantive amount settlement lest their legal reps initiate a “me, too” (res judicata) lawsuit reigniting the same problem for Arg as it faces now - payment of 13B immediately (or attachment of Arg property around the world).
    It will not be an easy fix and though Kicillof and the other Arg politicians insist upon conducting themselves like spoiled infants who ostrich-like ignor the reality of the impending legal doom, (what the hell is Cleary Gotlieb telling them), he may be right that a stay of the injunction preventing payment to the substitutes before July 30 is a practical necessity to allow the above type of resolution to be implemented.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yankeeboy

    7. You are assuming that there is good will built up and that the Argentinians are trustworthy and will honor the agreement in Jan.
    That is not the case.
    Nobody is going to do anything more than they absolutely have to.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • owl61

    No, I am not assuming anything. If the Ar government fails to pay in Jan or whenever so agreed, then the Elliot plaintiffs will have an enforceable judgment for the full amount of the original bonds (with interest and fees) minus the up front downstroke received at the time of signing the stipulated judgment. Failure to make subsequent payment will operate to automatically lift the stay of execution. That is SOP for failure to pay in such circumstances. Then the Elliot plaintiffs together with so many of the other holdouts who will have concomitantly settled by way of entry of stipulated judgment will have a judgment without further pre-attachment litigation.
    Attachment of a sovereign's assets is still very much an issue in the Elliot litigation. A writ of certiorari was filed in late June seeking to overturn the effect of the trial court order concerning the extent to which Ar's assets may be attached or subject to injunction to satisfy any judgment.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yankeeboy

    I don't see that happening, it gives too much wiggle room to know scofflaw deadbeats.
    Nobody is going to help them out if they don't have to.

    Jul 08th, 2014 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Be serious

    Playing for more time but without a clue how to take matters forward thereafter.
    Is this the best Argentina can do?
    Is he the best Argentina have?
    Seems the strategy is to get somebody else to do their dirty work so they can sulk at the unfairness of it all.
    Argentina may well win the soccer World Cup on Sunday but how embarrassing it must be to be Argentinian in just about all other respects. A beautiful Country with enormous potential let down by a greedy incompetent socialist elite.

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 05:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ElaineB

    Kicillof is just an embarrassment. His latest statement is so stupidly naive that I wonder if he realises there is no Santa.

    Who wants to tell him?

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 06:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • owl61

    An uncollectible judgment is not worth the paper it is written on. If Ar prevails on the issue effectively immunizing its assets from injunction or attachment, the holdout litigation will just have been an exercise in legal one-upmanship.

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Z-ville

    @13

    You are correct. Winning in court ultimately means nothing if you can't collect from the losing side.

    But that is also Argentina's reason to negotiate. It will cost the holdout funds time and money to locate and seize assets, even with court orders. And those seized assets must then at some point be converted to cash for the transaction to ultimately be meaningful for the winning side.

    This would be hugely embarrassing for Argentina, but it would also cost time and money for the hedge funds. So that is effectively the argument for negotiating. Argentina could offer to pay less than the full amount based on that it would cost the funds time and money to seize and recover assets.

    And if they spin it right they could even make it appear to the home fans that the were tough negotiators, rather than blundering idiots...

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 14 Z-ville

    Apart from Singer is a billionaire who has been consistently, outragiously, vilified byt he crooks of Argentina.

    I imagine, having won the case, that frigging around with a so called sovereign country on the arse of the world will make him chuckle.

    HE can afford it, The Dark Country cannot and deserves to be held up to the world as an example of what can happen to those who lie, cheat and cry and wail, making out it's always the other guy's fault.

    Argentina is pathetic. Well done to Singer.

    Jul 09th, 2014 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yankeeboy

    There are plenty of Arg assets to seize without issue. They own lots of property in the USA that is not considered Embassy property. He could start there and evict them. Then move around the world doing the same thing with countries we have strong relations with.
    Nobody cares about Argentina.
    I think most of them would love to see them humiliated too.

    Jul 10th, 2014 - 11:29 am - 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!