MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Victory for Argentina in its ongoing battle with speculative funds
The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York refused on Monday to force Bank of New York Mellon Corp to turn over to holders of defaulted Argentine bonds any of the $539 million the country deposited in 2014 to pay creditors who participated in its past restructurings. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesLike I said at the time, Griesa's decision was totally wrong.
Oct 06th, 2015 - 09:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0The drama will continue for another 10 years.
Oct 06th, 2015 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Had the holdouts bought into something legit theyd have a nice retun by now.
Pointless attempt to get blood out of a stone.
Oct 06th, 2015 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0No more loans.
@3 MK8
Oct 06th, 2015 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In this case Argentina was actually sending payment to the holders of restructured debt - the stone was giving blood. Griesa blocked that.
This ruling along with other reversals of Griesa's judgments are limiting the extent of the “technical default”. This opens more routes to lending around Griesa's jurisdition.
Did I misread this:-
Oct 06th, 2015 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The court upheld an October 2014 ruling from US District Judge Thomas Griesa, agreeing that the plaintiffs were not entitled to possess the funds and did not have rights to the money superior to that of BNY Mellon”
- it says that the court 'upheld' Griesa's decision not over-ruled it.
@5
Oct 06th, 2015 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are multiple rulings and multiple plaintiffs. These plaintiffs don't include NML/Singer. These plaintiffs wanted some of the money that was held up at BNY on Griesa's orders. They are not getting it.
@ 1 Condorito
Oct 06th, 2015 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am looking forward to read your explanation of how
“The court upheld an October 2014 ruling from US District Judge Thomas Griesa” (meaning his ruling was totally correct)
translates to your statement
“Like I said at the time, Griesa's decision was totally wrong.”
@7
Oct 06th, 2015 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Griesa's decision to block the funds going to the rightful recipients, i.e the restructured bond holders, was totally wrong. I said that at the time, I still say it.
Whatever the ruling actually says, the legal rulings and disagreements send a strong message to the financial community that future investments in whatever kind of Argentine instruments at no matter what ever high interest rates are a really very bad idea.
Oct 06th, 2015 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ Condorito
Oct 06th, 2015 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0now I am looking forward to read your explanation of how the ruling of United States Court of Appeals in NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina 12-105(L) (26 October 2012)
”CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the judgments of the district court (1) granting summary judgment to plaintiffs on their claims for breach of the Equal Treatment Provision and (2) ordering Argentina to make “Ratable Payments” to plaintiffs concurrent with or in advance of its payments to holders of the 2005 and 2010 restructured debt are affirmed.“
translates to your statement
”Griesa's decision to block the funds going to the rightful recipients, i.e the restructured bond holders, was totally wrong”
Not only the United States Court of Appeals but also the United States Supreme Court acknowledged Griesa's ruling.
I don't remember Griesa making a ruling that the plaintiffs were not entitled to possess the funds and did not have rights to the money superior to that of BNY Mellon.
Oct 06th, 2015 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I thought Griesa's ruling was...if you don't pay them all, then you can't pay any...
”But under New York law, preferring one creditor over another is neither actually nor constructively fraudulent.“
So Griesa's ruling that blocked Argentina from making payments to bondholders who participated in sovereign debt exchanges in 2005 and 2010 following the country's $100 billion default in 2002, unless it also pays holdout creditors....
.....Was incorrect and has been overturned by the appeals court...hence the victory...
So the statement @8...”Griesa's decision to block the funds going to the rightful recipients, i.e the restructured bond holders, was totally wrong”...is surely correct...
But what I really wanted to say was......
Where is Yankeeboy...I have a need to do a spot of rubbing...in the vicinity of his face....
....and a very important prediction I need to share with him....;-)
The vultures and other holdouts won't be able to put their hands on the $539 million held at the BNY Mellon. That's great news.
Oct 07th, 2015 - 02:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Griesa, a vulture puppet, prevented Argentina from making its regular payment to the restructured bondholders representing over 92 per cent of Argentina's total foreign debt. The move placed Argentina in a much-paraded “technical default” and was believed it would force the country to obey Griesa.
That did not happen, and now the money is off reach for the vultures.
The Argentine opposition, which has sided with Griesa, are in an increasingly awkward position.
@Alberto
Oct 07th, 2015 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0If I think judgement “X” is wrong, then judgement “X” is appealed against and upheld by a higher court, I will still think Judgement “X” is wrong. That should be obvious.
In this case IMO what is right is that the holdouts (who refused exchange bonds) get either the same deal as the vast majority who exchanged or nothing.
Since the restructuring Argentina did not missed a single scheduled payment until Griesa blocked this last one in question.
@12
Oct 07th, 2015 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0I do not think anybody in the opposition - what ever that means - will wish those delinquents be pay. To pay those people is like making fun of the law.
Why call them vultures? Vultures happen to live of dead bodies, Argentina is not dead. There are just plain criminals, misusing the law. Griesa is just a poor creature that happen to be there, some Judges also make mistakes. He is just one of them.
Ah! but Condorito, why don't you just write “I only respect the law if it is in my favour” and that goes for psql as well.
Oct 07th, 2015 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not only did the United States Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court accept Griesa's ruling on the meaning of US contract law, there are a judgment of a Belgian Appeals Court, the text of the Argentine 2005 prospect and the Argentine 2010 prospect in full agreement with it.
@15 Don Alberto
Oct 07th, 2015 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's perfectly possible to respect a legal judgement, and the institution that made it, whilst disagreeing with that judgement.
It has to be said again: Most creditors Argentina creditors agreed to get less money for their worthless bonds, in 2005 and 2010.
Oct 08th, 2015 - 03:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Creditors representing less than eight per cent of the country's debt declined the haircut and pursued through the courts getting 100 per cent of the bonds' nominal value.
They still can sit and negotiate with Argentina and get what the junk bonds really are worth in the market--not what Griesa said.
Or, they can wait some more, spend some more money in lawyers, and hope for the best.
Will P. Singer´s coffin carry a safety-box inside ?
Oct 08th, 2015 - 05:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Alberto
Oct 08th, 2015 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Heisenbergcontext @16 has answered you more succinctly than I could have.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!