MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Griesa accepts 'me too' claims and raises Argentina's bond debt to US$ 9bn
US judge Thomas Griesa on Friday accepted the priority repayment claims of hundreds more Argentine bondholders who did not join a huge debt restructuring. The ruling, on 49 complaints representing debt worth $6.1 billion, added fresh pressure on Buenos Aires which has refused to pay off two hedge fund creditors that already won court support for their claims. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesBCRA spent 6,5 bn USD in October in order to keep the “dolar blue” at bay, an action pretty much liken to flushing these funds down the toilet. Imagine how much better these dollars would have been spent ridding Argentina of the vulture funds and getting the country out of default. The stupidity of the K-regime has no limits.
Oct 31st, 2015 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What would have been smarter would have been for Nestor to buy the bonds back, specifically the $150 million the NML purchased years ago.
Oct 31st, 2015 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For $150 million we could have avoided this fiasco, but alas he was too busy doing backroom deals with Lazaro Baez.
@2
Oct 31st, 2015 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You would need a time-machine in order to achieve that. What can be done, however, is avoid burning off another 6 bn USD (if there's that much left) in November. Not likely, however. Macri will inherit a huge mess.
CFK is going to jail.
Oct 31st, 2015 - 04:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Kicilarff and Booboo are in real trouble.
Kissy won't be able to hide behind CFK, she'll abandon him - too busy saving herself.
Booboo better run before attention is turned towards him.
Timidman is awfully quiet - probably ready to slip out the back door to Miami with suitcases full of U.S. $ cash...
All Griesa has done is to follow contract law which relates to these funds.
Oct 31st, 2015 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina invoked US Contract Law because that was the only way to sell the bonds. BUT, and there's always a but, they relied on the same corrupt legal system they have in The Dark Country being in place in America.
Then they crossed swords with Griesa, how stupid was that?
LOL
Valiant vulture-friendly judge Thomas Griesa keeps making it better!
Oct 31st, 2015 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Indeed, his new offensive comes to show that presidential candidate Mauricio Macri last year's intention to comply with Griesa's order to pay a portion of the holdouts--the vultures--would not be the end of the problem but just the beginning.
If it was not was clear at the time it is now: that the remaining holdouts would come up for the 100 per cent of the bonds' face value as soon as the vultures were paid.
Argentina cannot, in fairness to the creditors representing 93 per cent of the country's foreign debt who accepted 70 per cent haircuts in 2005 and 2010, cave in to Griesa's blackmailing in favour of the remaining 7 per cent.
The country must keep its offer to negotiate with the holdouts a debt restructuring similar to the majority of creditors. Nothing less.
@6
Nov 01st, 2015 - 02:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0“cave in to Griesa's blackmailing”.
Funny you should accuse a U.S. judge of blackmailing. I thought the poster before you said Griesa was doing this:
“All Griesa has done is to follow contract law which relates to these funds”
You answer this for me and everybody on these boards:
Why did Argentina sell bonds under US Law, instead of just issuing them under their own law?
@7. I thought it was obvious. It was a scam from the very start. Its American lawyers “forgot” to include a collective action clause, the bonds were denominated in dollars. Argieland chose to abandon sovereign immunity and to issue the bonds subject to New York law. All aimed at making the bonds ultra attractive. Imagine bonds being offered by argieland, that had been in financial crisis for years, without those “goodies”. Few if any would have bought them. But they were touted to appeal to small “investors” who wouldn't have the financial means to take legal action against the argie government. Argieland was “unlucky”. Because it first came up against Paul Singer, with the money to buy the bonds and take legal action over the course of years, then against Thomas Griesa, with a simple wish to apply the laws of New York. It doesn't look as though anyone wants to give argies an easy ride. If argieland had any sense it would just pay up. Because the debt isn't getting any smaller. Look up “viveza criolla” and match its characteristics to the way the Kirchners have behaved. They thought they could get away with the scam. They never intended that the bonds should be properly paid. A final thought. If a bond issuer defaults it's supposed to negotiate with the bondholders. Not what Kirchner (deceased) did. He told them to accept the “haircut” or get nothing. Might have worked in argieland. Doesn't work in New York.
Nov 01st, 2015 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina conducted a successful restructuring of 93 per cent of its foreign debt in 2005 and 2010 with a 70 per cent haircut.
Nov 04th, 2015 - 02:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0It told creditors it could not pay what it owed at the time of the 2001 default over the hunger of its people, and that it needed the haircut so it could grow and pay the remaining of the debt, which it did after the haircut was accepted.
A portion of the remaining seven per cent--the holdhouts--refused any haircut and pursued legal avenues to get 100 per cent of their bonds' face value.
After some 600 failed legal cases around the world trying to seize Argentine assets, Judge Thomas Griesa made an unprecedented interpretation of the pari passu-equal treatment-clause and ruled the holdouts had right to their claimed 100 per cent.
Argentina has refused to pay that amount but said it would sit down and negotiate payment in restructured terms.
To reinforce the power of its initial ruling, Griesa has blocked rightful payment of interests and principal to the restructured creditors, putting Argentina in an artificial default.
The holdouts that pursue the case in the courts are the so-called vultures, of which the most notorious head is billionaire and Republican top funder Paul Singer.
The vultures' strategy has been to buy junk bonds of countries in or near default, then wait until those countries recover and go to a friendly court to get a favourable judgement.
Their strategy has allowed these rich financiers to siphon millions from some of the most impoverished countries in the world, including Liberia, Democratic Republic of Congo and Perú.
Argentina, however, has become too tough a bone for the vultures.
Here's hope their friendly candidate, Maurico Macri, takes it in the chin come Nov. 22.
@9 Massot must truly be Argentine: “ ... some of the most impoverished countries in the world, including ..... Perú.”
Nov 04th, 2015 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perú an impoverished nation? This is news to Perú. And to the rest of us.
“Peru is classified as upper middle income by the World Bank and is the 39th largest in the world by total GDP.”
Oh, and Perú has a lower poverty rate than.... Argentina. Of course, Argentina's poverty rate is so high that the Kirchneristas won't even admit to it.
Massot's comments continue to be laughable.
Reeekie's rant is mildly reminiscent of the braying of a donkey - somewhat irritating but in reality signifying nothing of consequence.
Nov 04th, 2015 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So rotting roadkill has burnt through how many billions of dollars in failing to undermine the black market exchange rate in hopes of influencing the elections?
@ 9 Riki MPH
Nov 04th, 2015 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't know if you are just stupid, do not understand what REALLY was on offer from the cunts sunning TDC or you are a LIAR! Take your pick.
Firstly the only bondholders (in real terms) who accepted the haircut were the banks. Guess why? YES, they could get back their losses by charging customers for the so called 'haircut', which at 70% was more like decapitation.
What about all the small investors like the Italian families who put their life savings in to them and have been gutted as a result of trusting argies? Are they the laughingly called vultures? Of course not.
You are a vile, cowardly person who should be dragged back to TDC and made to live on what TMBOA and INDEC claim is all you need, U$D 7 per day is it? Something stupid anyway.
ChrisR
Nov 04th, 2015 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We can assume that Enrique, living in Cochrane, Alberta, is earning far more than 7 pesos a day, or even $7 USD. I'm sure he is very comfortable after living the great majority of his life in Canada, or at least outside of Arg.
He probably got his house quite cheaply by world standards, if he bought it 20 years ago, or even 10.
Who can blame Enrique if he is an Economic Refugee. Why not let hard working honest people into your country to contribute to society and improve themselves?
Nothing wrong with that.
However, as an Economic Refugee, why would Enrique feel there was more promise to do better in life in Canada, than the country he loved and held such promise, and progressive freedoms, but left?
Once he established himself here, but professing his love of Argentina, why would he not go back and visit? Surely he could afford to do that, earning $CDN for all these years, yet it seems he did not, not even once.
If he is not an Economic Refugee, then he must be a Political Refugee - and what would he be fleeing, but Operacion Condor, in the form of the Argentine Junta?
Enrique has already told us in his posts, about the Right's 17
year war against the Peronists, as well as it would seem, the Leftist Socialists and Communists.
As a Leftist Political Refugee, it would make sense that if he was expelled or fled, he would be aligned with the CFK Peronists of today's Argentina.
Of course, 40 years of decline later, he has no idea what the reality is of living there, day to day.
@ 13 Troy Tempest
Nov 05th, 2015 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly.
Enrique is Mercopress' version of 'Comical Ali'
Nov 05th, 2015 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I recall having interviewed for a position with a large multinational based in North America. I had included in my CV a mention of my technical credentials as well as my being bilingual. The interviewing manager went on something like this: “So you say you are bilingual? We have bilingual people here in this office. They are called 'secretaries.' ”
Nov 06th, 2015 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0@16 Marty,
Nov 06th, 2015 - 02:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sounds highly unprofessional. I don't know any educated, courteous, interviewer or company officer in NA, who would speak like that.
It sounds unlikely.
Was that your *only* qualification, perhaps ?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!