Not sure I follow. The case didn't seek to overturn some rule of capitalist lending. It simply sought to enforce the laws of debt collection.
Without reading more I hypothesize that the Argentine government was trying to avoid having some of its property applied to pay down the debt by claiming that it did not own the property under question, arguing that it was held in trust by the govt for the benefit of others. The court found that the trust was illusory and allowed the debtors to apply the funds in question to pay down the debt. Nothing more sinister or contrary to routine law.
And the bondholders were not all financial institutions. Bonds were held by a mix of personal investors and institutions I believe. If you are an Argentine unhappy with the outcome of the court case I empathize, but transliterating the words of Pogo... "You have met the enemy and it is you."
How Cristina and Anibel Fernandez decide what Argentine property to liquidate or what amount of bills to print to pay off some of the original bondholders might negatively impact the Argentine way of life, but it is not the result of any evildoing by foreign bankers.
