Argentine holdout creditor Aurelius Capital Management has said that after talks with many financial institutions, the prospects for finding a private-settlement solution to the Argentine sovereign debt dispute had garnered no realistic proposals. Read full article
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
Comment removed by the editor.Aug 14th, 2014 - 07:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Comment removed by the editor.Aug 14th, 2014 - 07:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Instead of giving us the impression that you are blameless in these negotiations,,,why not give details of what deals you have been turning down....Aug 14th, 2014 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
So 80 cents on the dollar was not acceptable...what is an acceptable deal...
They never offered 80 cents to the dollar in the first place - and the negotiations are not about getting a discount for Argentina they are about finding a mechanism acceptable to both parties that enables them to pay what is owed.Aug 14th, 2014 - 10:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Why would the holdouts accept less than the court judgement found in their favour?
3. 30 cents on the dollar was their only offer. Arg is so lucky NML would take 80 cents, I think they are being quite generous. I would demand full payment in cash immediately just like the ruling states.Aug 14th, 2014 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Griesa has played them well giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
Soon the agreement with the Int'l companies to delay the repatriation their profits expires. I thinks is more than BCRA has in U$.
@5Aug 14th, 2014 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Q: Then what
4Aug 14th, 2014 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0
WTF are you talking about...you have no idea what has been offered by PRIVATE financial institutions to buy out the hold-out's debt...
This article is not about the Argentine Govt being enabled to pay what is owed, it's about banks buying the debt...
YOU ask why accept less....
Just because a yankee court had made a judgment doesn't mean they are going to be paid....have they been paid yet...?
A bird in the hand.....
http://www.ambito.com/diario/noticia.asp?id=753932Aug 14th, 2014 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
@7 - Not paid yet but I suspect that they will be.
7. The offers from Arg and the subsequent offers from the bank consortium have been reported in many news outlets.Aug 14th, 2014 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
As I said last week nobody is going to buy the bonds if they don't know when or if they are going to get paid.
NML doesn't need the money, Argentina is quickly running out of U$.
Arg will pay, the principal, interest, penalties and most likely all the attorney fees due to collection efforts.
But I bet not until 2016 0r 2017 I can't image CFK coming to her senses. Does she have any left? Lithium eats your brain, doesn't it Voice?
Oh, it's all going just how TMBOA always planned it: down the crapper.Aug 14th, 2014 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
But she will be off to Miami with Maxxus Prattus, et al.
I wonder how much the contract will cost on them?
@7. Should we help you?Aug 14th, 2014 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Can't say where yb got his figure from, but anyone thinking of offering less than 80 cents on the dollar need what little brain they have tested.
The placard of Griesa with The Vultures want your house, your job, your food...Aug 14th, 2014 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Come on don't you think that's going a bit overboard?
It is funny they spend so much energy on this b/s and won't even talk to the people who have tight grip on their huevos.
I based my point on what I had read the other week of 80 cents on the dollar being proposed...this was in the media...I am not privy to what goes on behind closed doors, but the recent offers of 50 cents on the dollar is a far cry from what YB suggested.Aug 14th, 2014 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Finger on the pulse my man...finger on the pulse...
So my initial point is probably correct...why don't the hold-outs tell us what is an acceptable offer...ballpark figure and stop playing the victim and sympathy card...
13. Immediate, full payment of the principal, interest, penalties and all legal fees is what is appropriate and past due.Aug 14th, 2014 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
They do have a binding contract and its been upheld through the highest courts in the USA.
Pay up deadbeats
We know what the holdouts want - full settlement of the debt including interest and legal costs. How hard is this to understand? The only issue up for negotiation is the mechanism by which it is paid - not how much.Aug 14th, 2014 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
If that is the case...then I have a prediction....Argentina will then sue their lawyers that put together the ambiguous contract that left them with a such a flawed liability...Aug 14th, 2014 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
16. Bahahahaha good luck with that!Aug 14th, 2014 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Do you get dumber every day?
It was an unambiguous contract designed to ensure that the deadbeat borrower paid.Aug 14th, 2014 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
17Aug 14th, 2014 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Are you trying to tell me that that is not a plausible solution....?
It's just that quite a few lawyers would disagree....do you never read what's being bandied about....?
Has this group of ne'er do well politicians and bureaucrats no pride? Are they not aware that their antics are such that never again will Argentina enjoy any credibility? They are taking their country down to the depths of despair with no apparent remorse nor thoughts for the future of their nation. God help Argentina!Aug 14th, 2014 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
17. Post some links proving your post. I'd love to know who or what you are referring to.Aug 14th, 2014 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Take me advice that suit wouldn't get past the front door of the court house.
21Aug 14th, 2014 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
If your lawyers had taken you into a situation that left you in such an obvious predicament would you sue them...
Whose fault is it...? The people that created the liability....? They should have known better....
You've got to hand it to Argentines. They take denial and blame the foreigner to a whole new level.Aug 14th, 2014 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
22. Post the links, you stated lawyers were talking about it. Other than you and I know you aren't a lawyer I've not heard or seen anything.Aug 14th, 2014 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
You don't know much about the law...or anything else do you?
Don't you get tired of being humiliated day in and day out?
wait a minute am I providing some sort of fetish for you?
24Aug 14th, 2014 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
When you can't answer a question...you deflect don't you...
Explain to me why the Argentine Govt shouldn't sue the people that created the liability...
...the obvious answer is ..they should....
...you know that, but don't want to admit it...
..do your own research...after all...you have nothing better to do...get a job sponger...
Am I deflecting by asking YOU to post links to an obviously misleading and false statement?Aug 14th, 2014 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Dumb as the day is long aren't ya
You are just upset...that you have missed the obvious...Aug 14th, 2014 - 04:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Start thinking instead of posting parrot fashion...
Now answer the question...who was responsible for the predicament....
...you know the answer...spit it out....
That's right whoever drew up the fallible contracts...
My name is Sue..how do you do....
#25 Voice....what happened to you A? Sue.....who and more importantly.....where?Aug 14th, 2014 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Voice who wanted to borrow money? Your points are moot as MNL has a legal, valid AND binding contract.
28Aug 14th, 2014 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I was prevented from accessing the A-Voice account...so has to change...
For Argentina to sue their lawyers and restructuring agents (investment banks including transfer agents and trustees) for the negligent advice in the first instance...
So Argentina is not culpable for mis-management of their debt and finances?Aug 14th, 2014 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
What was the exact advice in particular that was negligent from:
2-The transfer agents?
3-The investment banks?
Did the investment bankers seek Argentina out or did Argentina ask to borrow money?
I am curious to the advice you claim was given and more so was this alleged advice heeded?
@ 19 VoiceAug 14th, 2014 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
“Are you trying to tell me that that is not a plausible solution....?”
Let me explain some realities that you may not like:
1) Should TDC decide to sue their existing lawyers they would have to find another set of lawyers to take on the work. Now, you are an American Law Firm and you are asked to sue one of the biggest law firms ever to touch TDC and have represented them before on a default: for which TDC never made a published complaint: do you take them on?
2) Even American law firms want to be paid so you will have to come up with a few million dollars to put into an escrow account for if / when you lost, the present lawyers would already have a countersuit waiting for you.
3) And this is the killer: WGAF? Tell TMBOA to take it out or her graft.
I told you you would not like it. Back to Chubut with you.
@29 - Simple, the lawyers didn't tell the borrow the money. Unless the republic told them to put certian cluases into the document and they forgot you havne't got a leg to stand on. The document would have been heavily negotiated and the republic knew the risks. As such, not can't sue a firm because you made a bad deal, that's just life.Aug 14th, 2014 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Even with all that, at best....there is still contributory negligence ( they wanted to borrow money and did). Any case would not stand a motion to dismiss.Aug 14th, 2014 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
OK...I'll confess...I was winding YB up as usual...it's something I read in the comments of a particular site.....here's the post in full....it was fun to see the panic from YB..;-)Aug 14th, 2014 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
After all the sturm und drang of the judicial ruling, the final conclusion must be that the bond documentation was at fault; specifically, the law firms who prepared the original bond prospectus(es) are at fault because they obfuscated; Argentina could also claim that they were badly advised, and would never have agreed to the restructuring if their legal advisors (based on the lead group of restructuring banks I guess, though not exclusively) had suggested that the matter was not clear. Patently it wasn't.
BoNY is also at fault because they just went along with stuff without considering independently the quality of the situation.
In effect, it might have taken the holdouts some time to get to trial, but once they did, the judge was pretty unequivocal, so this means that decent lawyers should have been aware what the prima facie straightforward interpretation was likely to mean..
So, given this, if I were asked by Argentina what to do now, I would say sue your lawyers and restructuring agents (investment banks including transfer agents and trustees) for negligent advice in the first instance, as well as potential collusion to defraud; I would seek injunctions to prevent all of them from moving personal or partnership or corporate assets out of reach.
Separately, I would consider offering all restructured bond holders payments in a currency other than USd or Euros -possibly CNH-, after their agreement to waivers to any further future claims, and would instruct a non-US or European entity to act as payment agent.
This is as a general suggestion. A pari passu clause used to be pretty clear as to what it meant. The fact that advising banks and lawyers pretended not to does not make it better.
Justice Griesa had no difficulty getting to a clear interpretation.
yeah I'm bad alrighty...
The post is retarded. The pari passu clause is clear, its interpretation in a default situation where there was no negotiation rather a take it or leave it offer is the thing at issue. You can argue as argetina did and the fact that it had to go all the way to SCOTUS shows that their interpretation was at least considered. In the end, you instruct lawyers and you tell them what to do. Their lawyers have to them to shut up but they haven't so you could hardly argue that the lawyers have hoodwinked the republic into this situation....Aug 14th, 2014 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
My experience with lawyers is that they only give advice - whether you follow that advice or not the onus is never on them. You are responsible even if that advice may have been wrong!Aug 14th, 2014 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
News Flash:Aug 14th, 2014 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The reason the bonds carried the burdensome launguage is that - are you ready for it?
NO ONE TRUSTS ROTTING ROADKILL!
The holders of the defaulted bonds Knew who they were dealing with.
Hence, pari passu.
Hence, constructive receipt.
Hence, New York federal jurisdiction.
Are you really this ignorant? Huh?
If so, quit posting.
34 VoicepensionerAug 14th, 2014 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
yeah I'm bad alrighty...
yeah yeah, if you say so.
...and only YOU seem to say so, it seems.
Funny how everything you post about, very quickly ends up
being about... YOU.
Not surprising really - if you can't bait someone into a confrontation or a rebuttle, you start ballyhooing, yourself, about how amazing you are.
@ 13 VoiceAug 14th, 2014 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
On 13 August, the day before Voice blabbered about an offer of 80 cents, we were told that: **raised the offer to 50 cents** on Monday, sources told Thomson Reuters IFR.
Problem no. 1: NML paid more than 50 cents to the dollar in 2001-2003.
The disputed bonds, issued by Argentina in February and July 2000, were purchased by NML between June 2001 and September 2003, at a little over half their face value of 172 million USD. The bonds were governed by New York law, resulting in a 2006 U.S. judgment that Argentina owed NML the full value of the bonds plus 112 million in unpaid interest, according to the 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
# 16 (A_)VoiceAug 14th, 2014 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
If that is the case...then I have a prediction....Argentina will then sue their lawyers that put together the ambiguous contract that left them with a such a flawed liability...
That is undoubtedly right, Argentina will sue their lawyers, the King of Togo, and just about anybody else.
Not so good: The bond contract is from 1994, has been copied ever since with the acceptance of the various Argentine governments, like Nestor Kirchner in 2005 and Cristina in 2010, so good luck, birdbrains.
RR Donnelley linked to vulture fundsAug 14th, 2014 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Oh I see...no proof, just a statement to provide a cover for seizing whatever they can under a terrorism law, previously used to intimidate journalists. That ought to accelerate the process of getting multinationals to withdraw as soon as possible.Aug 15th, 2014 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
34. So your post is from an anonymous post on another message board where the following poster refute it?Aug 15th, 2014 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Do you have any idea how much of a knob you are?
You have no idea how stupid you make yourself look day in and day out.
43 YBAug 15th, 2014 - 02:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
All the more reason to ignore Voice
Come on guys! Stop feeding the trolls. They crave being noticed. They love to see that they are taking your time. They're the same as graffiti artists; they have to know that people have seen their work. If they get no acknowledgement they'll eventually lose interest.Aug 15th, 2014 - 06:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Yankeeboy's post @5 still sums it up nicely.
@ 43 the link to http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/07/31/1913552/Aug 15th, 2014 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
”That was the Argentine economy minister, Axel Kicillof, shortly before pixel time, having announced a (rejected) ‘offer’ of the same terms as Argentina’s restructured debt to the holdouts; blamed Judge Griesa; ...
reminds me of this sequence in The Falklands Movie”
43Aug 15th, 2014 - 12:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
So your post is from an anonymous post on another message board.
...and what do you think you are...haha at least it's a FT...blog....why don't you register and comment on there and see how they would tear you apart, or laugh you off the site....stupid boy..
Oh...how was the burger and fries....was there a long queue...? I forget, to you that would be line....
47. Do you get off being humiliated? I am thinking this site is providing you with a lot of me time.Aug 15th, 2014 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
It is really the only reason I can think of why you keep coming back.
48Aug 15th, 2014 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
A lot of You time...yeah I agree.....you are never off the site, get a job, sponger...and stop pretending you have one.
48 YBAug 15th, 2014 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
LOL, don't feed the lonely Troll
My life according to Voice changes so much in a day or two, I've been married, divorced, separated from my Rg wife forced to pay her monthly support. That was yesterday or the day before.Aug 15th, 2014 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Now I am an unemployed sponger.
What a lonely old fool.
More interested in my life than his own.
I guess I would be if I were him too. I do have a pretty fabulous life. Thank my lucky stars. :)