MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, July 7th 2022 - 16:51 UTC

 

 

Argentine Lower House clears the way for a floor discussion of accord with holdouts

Wednesday, March 9th 2016 - 05:35 UTC
Full article 16 comments

After rough discussions, Argentina's Lower House committees on Tuesday managed to clear the holdouts bill for debate with changes proposed by the allied Renewal Front and criticism from Victory Front lawmakers.The bill will reach the floor next week. If it passes, it will then be up for debate in the Senate, where the situation is similar, with the ruling Let’s Change needing help from opposition lawmakers to ensure the bill passes. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • HughJuanCoeurs

    “Public opinion must know that no discount was obtained, they are being paid what they ask for”. Well there's a shocker - having to pay back the money you borrowed and interest on the cash you defaulted on. Welcome to the real world.

    Mar 09th, 2016 - 08:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Moderator

    Not in Singer's case ! Had they paid him back what he invested he would get 10-15% face value plus intrest. Not 100% plus intrest. That is the real world.

    Mar 09th, 2016 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • willi1

    “Holdouts speculated a lot politically with the change of government, that is why there was no accord with the Kirchnerism,” Boosio said referring to the failed negotiations between holdouts and the administration of former president Cristina Fernández”..

    Idiot stays idiot.

    Mar 09th, 2016 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    NOW comes the first trial for Macri: can he 'rule' the country or not?

    Mar 09th, 2016 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lucifer

    Their choice is to pay or end up like Venezuela. They're running on fumes right now. There's not much time for them to fix this and move on.

    Its estimated the Kirchners stole upwards of U$20 Billion, maybe they should go looking for that money to pay off the debt.

    Why isn't Kicillof in jail yet?

    Mar 09th, 2016 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • willi1

    “Why isn't Kicillof in jail yet?”

    he was rejected because he is too stupid.

    Mar 09th, 2016 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CapiTrollism_is_back!!

    @1

    In the real world, people should be allowed to go bankrupt and not have to pay full value.

    You advocate a system completely on the side of the lender, no rights for the borrower. Fine, but then interest rates should be abolished. Because under such a system you have eliminated all risk. Interest rates to a large extent are determined by credit worthiness, and the risk of loss of principal.

    If those who go bankrupt must pay in full regardless of circumstance, then why are the still interest rates?

    Crony capitalist mentality at work here.

    Mar 09th, 2016 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lucifer

    The IMF wanted to set up a “sovereign” bankruptcy court but most countries don't want to give up their sovereignty to the IMF to do “workouts” that they'd have to abide by.

    Argentina's default drove this but nobody has heard much since 2014.

    It's fizzled out.

    Anyway without an invasion or cutting countries completely out of world trade and banking there would never be enough threat to get a country to comply.

    Bring back gunboat diplomacy
    It worked.

    Mar 09th, 2016 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @7 “ people should be allowed to go bankrupt”

    One must first understand the concept of bankruptcy, which the KepiTroll clearly does not. As indicated previously, there are in most civilised juridictions provisions for bankruptcy for people. But there is no provision for bankruptcy for nations. Even if there were, Argentina would doubtlessly elect to not follow the rules unless the outcome were uniquely favourable to Argentina, just as Argentina has done on other occasions involving judicial matters in which it says it will only abide by favourable outcomes. Thus there is no utility in providing for the equivalent of a bankruptcy mechanism which might involve Argentina, or for that matter any other sort of expectation of respect for law involving Argentina.

    @7 “ no rights for the borrower”

    The borrower's rights were spelt out in the bond contracts and in the prevailing law of the jurisdiction in which Argentina elected to sell its debt without the appropriate protections for orderly restructuring. Argentina was fully aware of its rights and obligations and willfully elected to chose the worst courses. Ultimately there are consequences for doing the wrong thing over and over again.

    @7 “ why are the still interest rates? ”

    Please refer to Economics 101 and the concept of “ time value of money.” In fact, have someone explain it to you and Kicillof in monosyllabic terms.

    Mar 09th, 2016 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Don Alberto

    @ 2 “Moderator” who writes the following nonsense: “Not in Singer's case ! Had they paid him back what he invested he would get 10-15% face value plus intrest.”

    Do show us the documentation for your claim.

    You can start here:

    1. ”Republic of Argentina v NML Capital Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 41 (04 February 2010)“:
    ”7. Between 6 June 2001 and 2 September 2003 affiliates of NML bought bonds in the two bond series at prices which were, in aggregate, 55.37% and 62.82% of the face value of the respective series.“
    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/41.html

    2. ”2011.07.06: Sovereign immunity in NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina - Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - Judgment“:
    ”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 US$172 million.”
    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/41.html (page 2 (3 in the .pdf))

    prices which were, 55.37% and 62.82% of the face value
    and
    at a little over half their face value

    You lose.

    Mar 10th, 2016 - 03:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Captain Poppy

    Gee, what a surpirse. Tobi the fake Mendozan Argentine shows up the same time with yb, the fake American.

    Come on MP, get fucking real.

    Mar 10th, 2016 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Don Alberto

    Poor Tobias, who does not know Mendoza except from the internet, writes: “In the real world, people should be allowed to go bankrupt and not have to pay full value.”

    To go bankrupt means that you have no valuable assets at all.
    I most countries people are allowed to go bankrupt.

    Countries, on the other hand, cannot go bankrupt, as they always have valuable assets like minerals, petrol, land, forests, income from taxes, harbours, etc.,etc.,etc.

    Mar 10th, 2016 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @12 “To go bankrupt means that you have no valuable assets at all.”

    Umm, not true. Bankruptcy often involves protection of very large amounts of valuable assets belonging to the insolvent party.

    Mar 10th, 2016 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Don Alberto

    “protection of very large amounts of valuable assets belonging to the insolvent party.”

    Not where I come from.
    Your not too valuable furniture, a TV, plates, cutlery and kitchen appliances, a modest car, your clothes, app US$ 1,500 per family member.

    Mar 10th, 2016 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @14 Many types of bankruptcies and many different venues. No idea of the types of protection available in your country.

    Mar 11th, 2016 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Captain Poppy

    #13 you are correct. Major corporations use bankruptcy to reorganize all the time and restructure their debts. In the USA that's Chapter 11, 13 for people and 9 for governments. Other countries have it as well.

    Mar 11th, 2016 - 11:25 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!