Changing Usd Before Or After The End Of The Month?

[French jurist]

Presumably you mean https://openlibrary....ttera_(d._1387)

Seems the latest arguments you have with your alikes is to criticize the spelling. Tells it all

 

[ElQueso]

It is indeed one thing to say "er, sorry man, but I think you mean 'vultures', the carrion eaters, not Vulpure, Nicolas who died some 627 years ago", as opposed to being purposefully obtuse. Particularly where a foreign language is concerned. As well as I speak Spanish (quantum levels above all but about three expats of European or North American extraction whom I know), I mess up from time-to-time and by far prefer to be corrected of my ignorance in a congenial manner rather than having my ignorance be the point of...well, purposeful obtuseness. But then again, that's just me.

 

[dennisr]

Not upset Repsol deal: Griesa

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101873403#.

 

[French jurist]

Not upset Repsol deal: Griesa

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101873403#.

Can someone explain how different US judges can rule on a same case? How are those rulings sorted/hierarchized? I don't know. (Don Alberto maybe knows?)

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Can someone explain how different US judges can rule on a same case? How are those rulings sorted/hierarchized? I don't know. (Don Alberto maybe knows?)

It was Griesa.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Not upset Repsol deal: Griesa

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101873403#.

Where is Don Alberto when we need him?

 

[French jurist]

.

 

[Don Alberto]

If I may correct you, the appeals court did not rule concerning intermediaries. The appellate court found the issue premature and "a question for future proceedings," which I would believe is now.

That is correct. The full court of Appeals approved Griesa's ruling on the two important aspects and asked the circuit court to clarify the third, minor aspect, namely third party implications.

United States Court of Appeals ruling, NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina 12-105(L) (26 October 2012)

p.28: (Quote)

Conclusion

18 For the reasons stated, the judgments of the district court (1) granting summary
19 judgment to plaintiffs on their claims for breach of the Equal Treatment Provision and (2)
20 ordering Argentina to make “Ratable Payments” to plaintiffs concurrent with or in advance of its
21 payments to holders of the 2005 and 2010 restructured debt are affirmed. The case is remanded
22 to the district court pursuant to United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir. 1994) for such
p. 29:
1 proceedings as are necessary to address the operation of the payment formula and the
2 Injunctions’ application to third parties and intermediary banks. Once the district court has
3 conducted such proceedings the mandate should automatically return to this Court and to our
4 panel for further consideration of the merits of the remedy without need for a new notice of
5 appeal.
(Unquote)
-------------
Excerpt of the third party aspect:

There are concerns about the Injunctions’ application to pure intermediaries in the process of sending money from Argentina to the holders of the Exchange Bonds and, to an extent, some confusion as to how the challenged order will apply to third parties generally.

The district court is invited to more precisely determine the third parties to which the Injunctions will apply.

Accordingly, we remand the Injunctions to the district court for such further proceedings as are necessary to address the Injunctions’ application to third parties including intermediary banks and to address the operation of their payment formula.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Don Alberto, we were expecting your comment of the payment Griesa allowed yesterday plus the payment done to the Club de París...

Do you have permitión to talk about that?

The point is that, paid or not, you are well informed (even you don t understand básic concepts of law) and your opinion in this subject might be interesting.

 

[wild_horses]

Hi,

So, are you following BAexpats recommendation?

Cheers!