French jurist
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 4,250
- Likes
- 3,391
Presidenta Cristina: "Impedir que alguien pague no es default"
www.losandes.com.ar/article/cristina-nego-el-default-y-pidio-unidad
Economy minister Kicillof: "there’s no default, we’ve paid"
http://www.buenosair...ult-we’ve-paid’
Can someone explain why the Argentine government claims that Argentina is not in default?
They have themselves very precisely defined what constitutes default in the prospectus for debt restructuring 2005 (under Néstor) and 2010 (under Cristina).
2005: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, Argentina's obligations to make payments of principal and interest on the New Securities shall not have been satisfied until such payments are received by registered holders of the New Securities."
http://www.sec.gov/A...04567e424b5.htm p-67
http://www.mecon.gov..._supplement.pdf S-67
"Notwithstanding the foregoing, Argentina’s obligations to make payments of principal, interest or other amounts on the New Securities shall not have been satisfied until such payments are received by the common depositary (or its nominee), as registered holder of the New Securities."
http://www.mecon.gov...(version_ingles)_30042010.pdf
According to both these (almost identical) Argentine definitions Argentina is in default.
Is it caused by selective amnesia? or saving face domestically?
Little rabbit has a selective reading & should read what's before:
"In the case of U.S. dollar-denominated New Securities, except U.S. dollar-denominated New Securities governed by Argentine law, the U.S.-European trustee will make payments to DTC or its nominee, as the registered owner of such New Securities, which will receive the funds for distribution to the holders of such New Securities;
In the case of euro-denominated New Securities, the U.S.-European trustee will make payments to the common depositary for Euroclear or Clearstream, Luxembourg, or its nominee, as the registered owner of such New Securities, which will receive the funds for distribution to the holders of such new securities;
In the case of peso-denominated New Securities (including Quasi-pars) and U.S. dollar-denominated New Securities governed by Argentine law, payments will be made to CRYL, which will receive the funds for distribution to the holders of such New Securities."So I guess the problem is along the lines that BNY Mellon has to respect contradictory obligations, because of the mess created (and Griesa still didn't rule about the Sovereignty problem).
Bisous