MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
“Argentina Finds Relentless Foe in Paul Singer’s Hedge Fund”
The following article by Peter Eavis and Alexandra Stevenson was published in The New York Times and addresses the current litigation between Argentina and the speculative funds. The hedge fund firm of billionaire Paul E. Singer has about 300 employees, yet it has managed to force Argentina, a nation of 41 million people, into a position where it now has to contemplate a humbling surrender. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe government of Argentina now faces a stark choice: Try to restart negotiations with investors it has repeatedly called “vultures,” who have insisted on full repayment.
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Doesn't sound like there's much room for negotiation if one side is demanding full payment .
On another note I read today in La Nacion that the rats are abandoning the ship in Kristina's camp.
“300 employees, ..... has managed to force Argentina, a nation of 41 million people, into a position where it now has to contemplate a humbling surrender”.
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So what.
The Falkland Islanders with a population of just over 3,000 managed to get Argentina to surrender.
Argentina loves humiliating itself.
stiglitz says, stiglitz means, stiglitz, stiglitz stiglitz...
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0he is a person thinking “big”. criminal governments can go bankrupt, no matter if the persons in charge like the ck-gang fill their pockets and steal the people their money by a 40 % inflation rate. he surely has millions in his own pockets and no sense for people who spent their small money money for government bonds.
there are not only companies like singer´s but thousands of private people suing the arg government.
@2
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So what? In 1806 a never before trained militia formed on the spot in the town of Buenos Aires, and a 4.000 civilian phalanx defeated the British Empire of 220 million people, 20 times larger, and with the world's largest and most veteran military (in conquest, plundering, and oppression).
To vary, the British repeated the same in 1807, same result (actually more swift and comprehensive defeat).
Then in 1845 Britain (plus France), thought they could just waltz in and greedily usurp Argentine river routes, and that nothing would happen. Argentina, at the time a country of 2 million, pounded the British-Franco ships (population of both empires 350 million), and defeated it.
So I concur completely with your logic. Thank you for your multiple humiliations at our hands.
-- -- --
“We’ve had a lot of bombs being thrown around the world, and this is America throwing a bomb into the global economic system,” said Joseph E. Stiglitz, the economist and professor at Columbia. “We don’t know how big the explosion will be — it’s not just about Argentina.”
We already know how big explosions by the crony capitalist pigs that post here on behalf of billionaires and corporations. Some food for thought for the crowd here that loves tyranny and economic imperialism of the rich of the poor, and who love to drive nations to default for because it is fun:
In 1998, Russia was forced to default on its debt. Who assumed to power two years later?
Vladimir Putin.
In 2001 Argentina was forced to default. Who assumed to power two years later?
Nestor Kirchner.
In 2001, Turkey had a similar situation. Who assumed to power in 2003?
Recep Erdogan.
So... has the US, EU, UK benefited from these three people assuming power? Were the benefits of default to a handful of men in the city and wall street worth the massive geo-political repercutions of Putin's Russia, Erdogan's Turkey, and Kirchner's Argentina?
I just laid out simply a fact on one had noticed.
The west are imbeciles.
Professor Stiglitz says, “Singer and Elliott have already done a lot of damage”
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I imagine he thinks Singer v Argentina goes something like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZomwVcGt0LE
There's some quite funny articles in the buenos aires herald today.
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Amongst the pricks is someone called Zaffaroni who says he's an argie supreme court judge. A Kirchner toadie. http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/166185/s-court-justice-zaffaroni-says-griesas-ruling-is-a-judicial-scandal
Then there's some git called Agis. Doesn't he look just like a gangster? http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/166185/s-court-justice-zaffaroni-says-griesas-ruling-is-a-judicial-scandal
Then there's Capitanich. An ignoramus if ever there was one. http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/166185/s-court-justice-zaffaroni-says-griesas-ruling-is-a-judicial-scandal
And then there's big cheesy feet. Kirchner itself. http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/166185/s-court-justice-zaffaroni-says-griesas-ruling-is-a-judicial-scandal
How funny these “people” are. Who could take them seriously? Find the means. Take the money. Leave the slut and her “associates” to suffer. With any luck it'll be piano wire and butchers' hooks. Piano wire round the throat and haul 'em up. Leave for 24 hours. Scum!
I find it funny that the capitalist tyrants and criminals like Singer have no problem with 8% of people dictating the fate of 92% of others.
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder if that is how he functions in HIS BOARDROOM (if he even allowed it). 92% of members want to pursue one course, 8% don't. I wonder if he allows the 8% to prevent the 92% from going forward.
I wonder if he believes that right should be afforded to politics.
If 92% of people vote for one leader (never happens), but if it did, why should the 8% who opposed be forced to accept the result?
Certainly not when the election is 51% to 49%. Why should the 49% accept a result 100% against them?
I'd like to see how the “REAL” world would function if the imbeciles like Singer and all the fanboys he has in this forum actually applied the rules they so gladly want to apply for money.
7. Are you trying confuse contract law with democracy?
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are a sad silly fool
Why don't you go help all the people in Mendoza caught in the fires from the rain storms.
It will give you something else to think about
Instead of hunger pangs.
@4 why do I get the feeling you were touching yourself when you wrote that?
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0in 1806 the Spanish colonials that were very familiar with the local area (and well versed in conquest, plundering, and oppression), already privately armed and trained, managed to organize themselves into a paramilitary group (shock...not) and defeated a force 20 times their size that was mostly made up men that would have had to choose between the army or starvation after an early life of poverty and almost constant malnutrition.
Not really a surprise then, since colonial forces have always made very effective fighting forces.
“The west are imbeciles.”...not a very nice thing to say about anyone to the west of the EU, Sr EUian.
Chuckle chuckle
:-)
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#7 titti boi tobi, according to the original contact that is still in force, 1% is the same and equal to 99% when it comes to making payments. Because Argentina declares it will not pay does not render the contract null and void. Get that through your simple mind.
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Most people learn from failures and yet Argentina fails over and over. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. For the first I do hope there is some serious impact of suffering in Argentina so that maybe.....just maybe this time the people of Argentina learn and rid themselves of this cancerous scourge known as Kirchnerism.
I see the first trial of Camagnoli did not work out they way Kirchner wanted it so they will try him again? When does it stop, when they get the results Kirchner wants? You call this justice? In a kangaroo system yes. Ever hear of the legal concept of double jeopady?
@4
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But pre 1816 it was a Spanish enclave....are you admitting your Spanish?
P.s the British war with the Spanish helped Argentina gain it's independence....cheque is in the post I'm sure of it.
Btw if you want to base an empire on conquest plundering and oppression, look no further than to your ancestors amigo.....hypocrite.....
Comment removed by the editor.
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 04:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The origins of the Argentine dispute trace back to 2001, when Argentina overwhelmed by its sovereign debt load, decided to default on its obligations.”
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0RG chooses not to pay.
Those who choose not to pay are deadbeats.
@13 Why don't you take up your dispute with the fund managers who recommended you buy the bonds in the first place.
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 2001 when Argentina was 100 billion in debt and fools were still buying the bonds who's fault is that?
You neglected the imminent risk in favor of a higher yield.
Go ask who ever sold you the bonds for your money back.
15 Klingon
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you mean you were issuing bonds without the intention of paying them back ??!!
Fund Mgrs. are just agents selling LOANS in your name.
YOU received the money, YOU promised to pay it back.
YOU... KEPT the money - other people lost theirs.
The money you are fighting over, was never yours to begin with !!
Face up to your responsibilities - your government spent(kept) the money, on your behalf.
The Supreme Court minister Zafforoni said “ the holdouts acted in bad faith when buying Argie bonds ” this is a purchase made with a perverse purpose, intentional, malicious, to sum up immoral “ he said.
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He should have said ” the Argentine government acted in bad faith when selling Argie bonds, ” the selling of the bonds was made with a perverse purpose, intentional, malicious, to sum up immoral, he should have said.
Just pay up and move on. Judgement has been handed down.
@16 I am not defending the way our govt has handled this mess. They are as despicable as the vulture funds in my opinion.
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But it still comes down to taking financial responsibility for your own investments.
Who advised the buyers of these bonds it was a good investment and neglected the risk even though Argentina has a long history of defaulting. (Everyone knows Argentina is a deadbeat payer).
Same reason not everyone qualifies for Amex platinum credit cards.
Trouble is you have 2 morally bankrupt people who will not find middle ground to work out a deal. ( Singer and Kristina, they deserve each other).
#4
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well done to your ancestors in the 19th century BUT this is the 21st century, so, after 1845 you have done exactly what militarily, apart from slaughter some of your indigenous population.
When you met the UK for a “punch up” the last time remind me what happened ? You did not come out of it too well.
http://dawlishchronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/britain-and-france-confront-argentine.html
ALSO
The newspaper La Nación interviewed revisionist historian Pacho O'Donnell, traditional historian Luis Alberto Romero and British historian David Rock.
Luis Alberto Romero considers that the importance of the battle is overrated because it was a defeat: the Anglo-French navy destroyed the artilleries and proceed to the north, as they wanted to do. The end of the blockade in favourable terms to the Confederation was more the result of a change of policy by the Foreign Office after the appointment of Lord Palmerston than a success of Rosas' diplomacy.[43] Pacho O'Donnell considers that, even though the navy could force its way, it ultimately failed in its main purposes: they could not turn the Argentine mesopotamia into a new country, nor gain total control of the Parana River, nor establish their presence in the zone.[44] David Rock concurs, but considers that it is exaggerated to treat the battle as an epic. He points that the number of casualties in it may be high in the context of the military history of Argentina, but not on a global scale, as it was nowhere near the 1916 Battle of the Somme, with more than 60,000 deaths in just half an hour.[45]
Hardly the magnificent victory you claim but again, you were taught the ARGENTINE VERSION OF HISTORY !!!!!
http://www.thespoof.com/spoof-news/business/122050/falklands-in-argentinian-government-bonds-rescue
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@20
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Funny!
When Nestor the molestor told bond holders to go stick it, he knew he had the upper hand. When he made the swap, he was very aware that they contained very powerful language in them, ie. US jurisdiction, RUFO and acceleration upon default. Why did he not care? Simple. He never believed that Argentina would EVER pay the holdouts. EVER. He knew that the language would never come to bite him. Well, a judge with some balls ruled that the letter of the law stood even when it meant that a poor country would have to pay up as agreed. This is very unpopular with Socialists as they know not how to make money, only how to take it from those who do. Paul Singer is the guy who has the balls and Greisa is too old to care about anything except what the law says. A great combination of Patriots that the world thought had been eradicated by the Socialists. Guess again!!
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@18 Klingon : ' Singer and Kristina, they deserve each other'
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you suggesting CFK and Singer should 'get it on' and she could pay him in giggity giggity?
I'm afraid they already have, and Timmerman was the offspring
chuckle chuckle
I forgot to add that when Nestor made the swap, he got such favorable terms, ie 70% discount, that he probably figured that if Argentina ever did have to pay the holdouts, big deal, after all whats a couple of billion to pay when you just saved 70 billion. In other words STF up!! Argentina still stole the pig. Don't be a sore winner!!
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A humbling surrender.
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Says it all really. Argentina has been bought to its knees by one man.
And it will stay on its knees until told otherwise. Eventually the government's bitching and moaning and wailing and groaning and gnashing of teeth will die down and they will pay.
What a humbling experience 10 years of Kirchnerism has been for Argentina.
you pay what you owe, just pay what you owe.....
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 01st rule of borrowing money. Even a four year knows this, you have to wonder at the Argentinian mentality, if they don't get this simple rule..
Just pay what you owe.....
You've got to wonder what sort of finance minster, what sort of president thinks that this does not apply to them..........
Just pay what you owe.....
Simple enough...right??
18 “Singer and Cristina deserves themselves”..... all the buitres and their friends are enjoying these days I see.
Aug 03rd, 2014 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Never been kirchnerist, not will be, I have a lot to criticise, but the buitres are speculatives companies that have made the same in Perú, and other countries with the “respaldo” of US justice & financial system. Many countries are being perjudicated. Just search how this only 1 % of vultures operate. Its not new in our region.
@27
Aug 04th, 2014 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0probably because you are suckers, always looking for a short cut, or an excuse not to pay your debts. Easy carrion for the vultures. If you play by international rules you would not be in this situation.
All of what Arg did to restructure its debt was legal. I know persons that had had that bond and are been paid well.
Aug 04th, 2014 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0look: www.fortunaweb.com.ar/2014-08-03-143675-como-es-el-nido-desde-el-que-opera-el-fondo-buitre-que-tiene-en-vilo-cristina/
It seems buitres studies well well as it is their work how to speculate while buying these kind of bonds, and even have the influential power in US to change laws, make exceptions lobbying with congresists of US, etc.
And they are not litigating with other comapnies, but with countries, thats the most “dangerous” part and its economies and effects on its peoples.
they are not new. new rules to avoid them should be built.
18 Klingon
Aug 04th, 2014 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0I know you to be an even-minded poster. I appreciate that you are not a Kirchnerist.
However, the “investors” are actually, “bond-holders”.
These are not shares in Argentina, that they bought.
They bought bonds. In other words, they loaned Argentina money with a contractual, fixed, rate of return - a guarantee to repay the lenders.
The value of the bonds does not fluctuate with the fortunes of the Borrower.
Furthermore, you can't suggest it was “irresponsible” of the bond-holders to buy bonds backed by a Sovereign State.
That would normally be a great inducement - governments are not usually insolvent. They were marketed with that reassurance, and under the condition that the bonds were issued through banks under US Jurisdiction - precisely to protect the bond-holders in the very situation we find ourselves in.
Argentina successfully “wrote down” the value of 92% of the bonds to less than 30% of what they owed - by betting that many many small b-holders wouldn't have guts or organisation to resist the “take it or leave it” ultimatum.
Singer et al, are only asking for the original value of the bonds, plus interest - something Argentina has always been obligated to pay.
They are even open to negotiate, but it is Argentina that refuses to budge from their position.
Even if Argentina paid all b-holders, both the 92% at steeply discounted value, and the remaining 7-8% at the face value, they are not even meeting their original obligations to pay, and they are simply pocketing MOST of the money they owe.
Sorry, it is only unfair to the pensioners who lent money to a country offering their assurances that it was safe to do so, when they had no intention of honouring that contractual commitment - in any other words, that's fraud.
The tragedy is that those entrusted with your welfare, your own government, has screwed you over, as well as everyone else, including those who would extend credit to you.
That won't happen again for awhile.
When you have people who want to receive payment and people who want to pay a way will always be found.
Aug 04th, 2014 - 03:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Money has that funny habit of finding new routes to flow through, around, over, under.
NY is a boulder blocking the stream.
Well for now anyway.
31 Vestige
Aug 04th, 2014 - 04:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0...waxes philosophical. Brilliant!!
Where were you the last 12 years, O Wise One??
mock mock mock...
30 TT
Aug 04th, 2014 - 07:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nice post and well explained. I love how people on here are confusing (trying to confuse others) the issue and trying to portrait it as something it isn't. A good dollop of emotion always helps make it sound more dramatic also.
Like you say: the issue is surrounding bonds, not shares. They were bought legally and sold legally and they have a value. Whether Argentina ultimately pays of not, nothing is going to change those facts.
I am amused by the attitude that some Argentines have on here saying that people should've known better than to buy the bonds because they were Argentine. That reminds me of someone I know who stole a LOT of money and their only defence was that the firms they stole it from had really poor financial controls. I think he's still inside.
33 Jay Bee
Aug 04th, 2014 - 08:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0“...a good dollop of emotion... ”
If I were to characterise an Argentine Troll post, it would be, loud righteous indignation with no substance behind it.
The other, current refrain is, “why won't they give us a 'stay' for a few months?”
You've just had a stay, for years - you didn't use your time wisely to sort out your affairs or come to any agreement.
NY is the Hoover Dam.
Aug 04th, 2014 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina is a trickle.
Don't borrow money, if you can't pay it back. Simple.
Aug 04th, 2014 - 11:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0However if you borrow money & have no intention to pay it back, thats fraud.
lf you issue bonds & accept money for them & have no intention of honouring the bond's worth, well that is not only despicable but super-fraud.
Argentine Government=deadbeats
lts no wonder why very few people believe Argentina's made-up stories about the Falklands, when that same dishonourable government reneges on their bonds.
Criminals, the whole shower of them.
We did pay back to 93 %, and good money, happy end for both sides.
Aug 04th, 2014 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you buy a bond in a country in crisis or defaulted bonds for cents, asume the risk of what you do, you cant expect millonaires earnings. Nobody was obligated to buy them.
As Pope says, the money is in the hands of a few bunch of speculatives multimillonaires in detriment of a majority of por people in earth.
You paid 93% an average 27% of what you borrowed from them!
Aug 04th, 2014 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You call that good??????
@ 37 The Pope sits on far many more billions of U$D than anyone else: he’s an hypocrite and you are a lying moron about the 93%.
Aug 04th, 2014 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 20 Brit Bob
Loved the link:
“The IMF have accepted a proposed nomenclature adjustment to the South American Country with a working group name of Argenitalia.” SO appropriate.
This article misses the point. It wasn’t Singer and his 300 employees who humbled The Dark Country: it was Cyclops and TMBOA who did that aided and abetted by everyone else in the country when they decided not to pay back what they owed.
All Singer did was to have the balls and the money to push and push and push. He WILL get his entire investment back plus interest plus legal fees, just wait and see.
TDC is now on the verge of yet another disaster of epic proportions: GREAT! They bully Uruguay, now they are going to get theirs. Serves the bastards right.
Just a point for the Argies here. The bondholders who refused to take the ultimatum ( 30 cents in the US$ ) sold on the bonds which they are legally entitled to do for more than the said 30Cents. A bird in hand is worth two in a bush. Siger who bought the bonds wants the principal and interest back. Again he is legally entitled to this. The fact remains that the Argie Gov not only turned over the bondholders but the whole of Argentina, where is the money they borrowed would be my question?
Aug 04th, 2014 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 037 malen
Aug 04th, 2014 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This post makes me wonder if Argentines really understand what happened to their debt.
@37
Aug 04th, 2014 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As the pope is Argentinian perhaps he can spend some of the billions to not only bailout Argentina but reduce poverty in the world
I think this pope is humble and demostrates that.
Aug 04th, 2014 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 038 an arrengement is a problem between two parts, if they agree its becuase its convenient for both. WHat you think doesnt matter.In this time if you are been paid in dollars you win and in pesos too. If the country was in default in 2001 is better to be paid than not. You always win and lose money investing. Perhaps they win with one, they lose little money with other and so on.
@43
Aug 04th, 2014 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tell me have I got this straight. This was not stocks and shares. This was a sovereign country selling bonds with interest. The price of them do not go up or down. Argentina lied to the bond holders and is only giving them 30 cents to the US$ They were guarenteed there money back ( the bond value ) and were promised a % interest. Do you not see the problem? Try this . You lend me US$ 1,000 and say you want 5% each year until maturity under a contract in US law. I say to you in 3 years time I am only going to pay youUS$ 250. What would YOU do, forget it?
As usual the complete and utter retards running Argentina are talking to everyone but the people who could solve this crisis they created.
Aug 04th, 2014 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ISJ...come on, not even in the wildest imagination could this happen
Paying the NY Law bonds in the EU...no way no how
Finding an illegal link between Default Ins and The Mediator, Judge or Singer
They're just throwing crap around
The Gov't is in total spin mode as their economy spirals to nothingness
I wonder if they want a total collapse so they can declare martial law and never have elections again?
@45 This is the perfect time for someone to step up and take over, but no one has the balls.
Aug 04th, 2014 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@46
Aug 04th, 2014 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unfortuneately what you say is true, same old same old, just feathering their nests.Anyone critisising the CFK gang either loses his job or could disappear, very sad such a beautiful country run by cretins. Not short of resourses either but no one will invest.
Prices of bonds go up and down, they cotizate in arg market, I believe.
Aug 04th, 2014 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And what I dont understand, why these millonaires dont invest in their own country or others more developed, so their inversions would have less risks??
37 Malen
Aug 04th, 2014 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“We did pay back to 93 %, and good money, happy end for both sides. ”
You only ' agreed 'to pay 27% of what they are owed by you, in a 'take it or leave it, ultimatum.
And, if the other troll, “British Bomber” aka Hepatia, is to be believed, you still owe his/her fictitious Granny, several more payments.
Liars and deadbeats - Argentine Government.
Cristina and her gang of deadbeats and liars have humbled Argentina. No-one else.
Aug 04th, 2014 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Light the light shine in and the people wake up.
@ 18 Klingon writes: “Who advised the buyers of these bonds it was a good investment and neglected the risk even though Argentina has a long history of defaulting.”
Aug 04th, 2014 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't know who advised the buyers in general, but about 192 000 of the bond owners were Argentinos who trusted that their country would fulfill the contract. Many of these people were saving for their pension. They were robbed just like the Kirchner government in 2008 nationalized the Pension Funds and stole 25-30 billion dollars from other Argentine pensioners, and again raided its own pension fund (Anses FGS) in 2012.
48 Malen
Aug 04th, 2014 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Prices of bonds go up and down, they cotizate in arg market, I believe.
And what I dont understand, why these millonaires dont invest in their own country or others more developed, so their inversions would have less risks??”
you really must be incredibly stupid.
does the whole concept of issuing bonds to BORROW money, elude you?
Bonds are issued at fixed rate of return - that does not change, once they are purchased. They are NOT shares.
It is a BOND - a CONTRACT to lend money and have it payed back.
ARGENTINA asked for loans, and issued BONDS to cover them - time to pay back the money, according to the CONTRACT you agreed to.
Simple.
Other countries dont default on their bond payments - there is no price spread elsewhere.
Singer gave “the Holdouts” more than Argentina did, for the Bonds that Argentina REFUSED to honour.
Enrique Massot, read something that is not inflation-is-only-10.8% Argentine government “truths”, and learn:
Aug 04th, 2014 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Definition of default in the Argentine 2005 debt exchange (official Argentine government document on gov.ar)
“Argentina's obligations ... shall not have been satisfied until such payments are received by registered holders of the New Securities.”
http://www.mecon.gov.ar/finanzas/download/us_prospectus_and_prospectus_supplement.pdf S-67 : RECEIVED
2010 debt exchange also on gov.ar
“Argentina’s obligations ... shall not have been satisfied until such payments are received by the ... registered holder of the New Securities.”
http://www.mecon.gov.ar/finanzas/download/us_prospectus_and_prospectus_supplement.pdf S-110 : RECEIVED
The disputed bonds, issued by Argentina in February and July 2000, were purchased by NML between june 2001 and September 2003, for more than half their face value of 172 million USD. (from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.)
2011.07.06: Sovereign immunity in NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina - Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - Judgment
http://www.mecon.gov.ar/finanzas/download/us_prospectus_and_prospectus_supplement.pdf
Those who took part in the restructuring 2005 and 2010, receiving 25 to 29 cents on the dollar
http://www.mecon.gov.ar/finanzas/download/us_prospectus_and_prospectus_supplement.pdf
The “vulture funds” bought the bonds more than half their face value, Argentina paid less than 30 cents per dollar. Who is the vulture?
The full United States Court of Appeals acknowledged judge Griesa's ruling.
http://www.mecon.gov.ar/finanzas/download/us_prospectus_and_prospectus_supplement.pdf p.28
http://www.mecon.gov.ar/finanzas/download/us_prospectus_and_prospectus_supplement.pdf
There were more than 500,000 aggrieved creditors of the Republic of Argentina.
http://www.mecon.gov.ar/finanzas/download/us_prospectus_and_prospectus_supplement.pdf
@41 Nobody understands, all people know is that the bad vultures want to force us into indentured serviture thanks to our government.
Aug 09th, 2014 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How do you get indentured servitude from paying back what you borrowed?
Aug 10th, 2014 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How about this?
Company A in the USA buys 3,000 million worth of soy from Company B in Argentina
Companys takes possession of the soy in August
In Sept company decides it was too costly
Company A tells company B here is 300 million, I can't afford 3,000 million that I signed a contract for, take it or leave it.
Company B refuses and sues
Company A never pays BUT, sells the soy
who owes who what here and why?
55 Poppy
Aug 10th, 2014 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ok, pencils down.
Hand in your papers.
Whoops, nobody answered the question !!
Too difficult, or do you think it was a trick question?
@ 55 Captain Poppy
Aug 10th, 2014 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Company A in the USA buys 3,000 million worth of soy from Company B in Argentina
(NO, they have not bought it; they have contracted to buy it subject to delivery and meeting specification, no consideration (money)has so far been paid)
Company (A) takes possession of the soy in August.
In Sept company (A) decides it was too costly.
(Why? Did it not meet the agreed specification, in which case a lesser price can be negotiated, or was it deception / fraud and they didn’t want to pay?)
Company A tells company B here is 300 million, I can't afford 3,000 million that I signed a contract for, take it or leave it.
Company B refuses and sues.
(Why? There has been no meaningful dialogue over why Co A ‘cannot’ afford it. Only idiots sue as the first recourse).
Company A never pays BUT, sells the soy.
Who owes who what here and why?
Answer:
Company B still owns the title to the goods because they have not received the consideration set out in the contract (the purchase order if you like).
Company A OWES the contract price to company B as there has not been a legally acceptable rebuttal by Co A. They have in fact been guilty of selling stolen goods, which THEY stole.
Saying you can’t afford it after agreeing IN WRITING that you contracted to enter into a legally binding contract does not remove the liability of satisfying the contract terms.
China screwed Brazil over the price of the soy they ‘wanted’ but Brazil cannot take action because a contract was never signed BEFORE the soy was exported.
Contract Law: that’s how it works in the UK anyway.
There are other legal requirements which need to be considered if the contract is to be 'held', such a ‘competence’: is each contractor legally competent to sign which includes are they an authorised signatory of the company, do they understand what they are signing (commercial against private ‘standing’), etc, etc.
You're all forgetting the Argentine factor.
Aug 10th, 2014 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina assumes that they have the right to “negotiate”if something doesn't turn out like they expected, regardless if a contract was signed or not.!
Furthermore, Argentina reserves the right to just walk away, blameless, if “negotiations”don't go Argentina's way.
Not forgetting, that finally, it was ALWAYS someone else's fault.
Thanks for to finite details, it is always good to have a lawyer MP clarify (same as a Philadelphia lawyer) clarify a generalization for a point. I am sure that is how my firm does all there exporting as well.
Aug 11th, 2014 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 59 Captain Poppy
Aug 11th, 2014 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I will take that for what passes as a compliment from you despite the connotations of being a 'snide remark' because a Philadelphia Lawyer is considered a ‘know it all’ because he does, know his profession that is ans seemingly beats all the opposition.
I do actually have legal training in contract law (in the UK) as part of my management team position within the Building Industry in the UK.
But thanks anyway.
(tipping my hat) England did give us the basis of our legal system.
Aug 11th, 2014 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!