Effects Of A Default On Expats

[French jurist]

@CFK --> Argentina should immediately set-up websites & other medias to communicate about the fact those Vultures rob US taxpayers money (and it doesn't cost much), of course in English.

 

[scotttswan]

@CFK --> Argentina should immediately set-up websites & other medias to communicate about the fact those Vultures rob US taxpayers money (and it doesn't cost much), of course in English.

Something similar already exists in the UK about companies robbing taxpayers through creative accounting. No idea if it has done anything in the US but it certainly highlighted a bunch of problems in the UK.


http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/

and copied in the US.

http://www.usuncut.org/

The results seem to be in the UK that celebrities dodgy tax dealings have been heavily publicised whilst the big corporations and Cameron's mates don't get as much publicity despite what UK uncut do.

 

[Ries]

I thank you too & appreciate your posts as well, excellent statements followed by a proper demonstration.
In short for the first paragraph:

- Conspiracy theory/insults/suggestion of corruption: the US rank in the second half of the high income countries for anticorruption (ranks close from France) - http://data.worldjus...ject.org/#table​

In Griesa’s case, it’s a problem linked to a minority of ultra-rich people, big companies who manage to use the public system for their private gain. It’s not innocent that Singer managed to have his own Act passed for instance - http://www.gpo.gov/f...12hhrg76980.pdf. It’s not innocent that GWB erased the Congo debt so that Singer could make profits (to the expense of US taxpayers of course) - http://dollarsandsen...507palast2.html . It’s not innocent that GWB won the dubious election. It’s not innocent that GWB attacked Iraq on false grounds for private interests. It’s quite astonishing that Kenneth Dart escaped the IRS (to the expense of US taxpayers of course), while the AFTA (the Vulture funds site against Argentine) has such a page - http://www.atfa.org/...efault-matters/ . It’s not innocent that banksters, who jeopardized millions of Americans, got saved by the US taxpayers and that no real regulation was put in place later on.​

I could keep going on, each country has its own problems, the US problem appears to me as originating from: what’s becoming a plutocracy + ultra wealthy individuals or entities which have way too much power.​

- Misunderstanding of the US judicial system: while I studied Law, I admit I only have a vague idea about it (learning though)​

Now for your points:

- Indeed, the judgement is in force now (never said otherwise?)​

- Argentina's claim on debt restructurings : not sure which one you refer too, if that’s the idea there’s a form of Economic imperialism, I think it’s true to some extent, and likely untrue in other aspects. Anyway, what’s for sure is that this jurisprudence worries many countries & international organizations (not really debated anyway).​

- Judge blocking the payment to other bondholders: precisely the issue (already debated in extenso in other posts).​

- and unless he sees progress in the negotiations between the parties, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that he will suddenly change a position that he has held for years: the fact he decided to block payments to others (or to take hostage the ones who were goodwilling and accepted a cut, depending on how ou consider that) is quite recent but follows a 10 years fight between two hard headed sides. Nothing really new, what will the negotiations give? I keep on thinking Argentina has the upper hand (already explained).​

- I don't even know how to address your odd parenthetical comments in the first paragraph about the role of psychology (which itself is an odd notion): in fact, quite a few commentators mentioned the psychological aspect, for instance Griesa’s ruling was the act of an exasperated judge at the end of his tether. (in this interesting article http://www.foreignaf...nd-vs-sovereign )​

- Griesa's ruling has been proven, by being accepted by the appeals court, to be above the sovereignty of Argentina, and is being enforced: in fact there are two things, Griesa’s ruling & Griesa’s decision to block the payment to foreign bond holders. Concerning Griesa’s ruling, in Legal terms (I’ll do my best in English), it’s not that Griesa’s decision was proved to be above the sovereignty (would be a nonsense), the debate at the SC (at least in the june 2014 SC ruling, didn’t read them all) was about the Foreign Immunity Act and whether or not the discovery of extraterritorial sovereign assets would be covered by it (SC answered no). Now for the decision to block the payments to foreign bond holders, that’s precisely here that Griesa’s is violating Argentina’s sovereignty since Argentina (or eventually the sovereignty of other countries).​

Interesting case indeed

Frenchie- while, I personally, think Singer should have lost, and that he shouldn't be able to ruin the entire deal, and that he is, indeed, a vulture-

Singer doesn't have anything to do with "electing" judges- at this level, Federal Judges like Greisa are appointed, not elected.

And "not innocent"- this is entirely subjective, and, frankly, irrelevant.

Innocent, in terms of being provably a crime in a court of law?
All this stuff you call "not innocent" is, currently, legal.

So, in this context, "innocent" is merely an opinion. And, not, unfortunately, the opinion of the judge, whose opinion actually counts.

There are often situations, in law and in politics, that we don't like. But they are often facts, reality, and the law.

I am afraid the ruling in this case is one of those.

I think the most interesting suggestion I have read is that of Bianca Fernet, the psuedoname of the writer at BubbleAr.-
Basically, she is saying, now that they have lost in the court of law, the Argentine government should try shaming Singer into negotiation, by using a carefully set up international mediation session-
She is a bit conservative, in the sense that she accepts conventional international banking wisdom, but she is smart, and knows the facts of the case.
http://bubblear.com/...-is-a-bad-idea/

The reason Argentina is screwed is that due to the prior default, nobody would buy their bonds unless they were issued in NY, for dollars- and that means they fall under US court jurisdiction. But if they had the credit worthiness to avoid that, believe me, they would have.

 

[ghost]

Greisa has said, repeatedly, that he would consider it to be progress if both sides would "just talk" or begin negotiations [he throwing Ar a bone]. They have not. Instead of doing what business people do on a daily basis...Xtina gives 40 minute speeches, flashes pictures of Evita and images of Nestor flipping the bird at the IMF. Neither of which can be considered as "negotiation" .
Singer et al are pigs and vultures, however, what they do is legal and because it is legal, Greisa must uphold their right to do it [even if he finds it to be distasteful]. Singer is too smart to fall for mediation but his boys might negotiate somewhere in some back room. With some bond tied to the Dead Cow's future production.

 

[French jurist]

@Ries, my bad for "innocent", wrongly translated to English (we say in French, "ce n'est pas innocent" like "it's not by coincidence").

Indeed Griesa

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

Just read that Griesa has just called another hearing for July 22nd to hear arguments. The soap opera rolls on ...

 

[dennisr]

Here we go again, Gomer's ruling on Griesa:
Griesa's ruling is biased in favor of the holdouts. All Investors of AR bonds must be treated equally, OK. What the hell is equal about giving holdouts 100% of face value and settled bond holders only get 30%. If all things are required to be equal for investors under New York law, it would seem equal treatment for investors should have been interpreted to mean 30% for vultures and 30% for settled bond holders. The ruling by Griesa to award 100% to holdouts is crazy and entirely his own remedy to appease the holdouts and not part of any written law anywhere. The ruling is bogus and the Supreme Court validated the bogus ruling.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Here we go again, Gomer's ruling on Griesa:
Griesa's ruling is biased in favor of the holdouts. All Investors of AR bonds must be treated equally, OK. What the hell is equal about giving holdouts 100% of face value and settled bond holders only get 30%. If all things are required to be equal for investors under New York law, it would seem equal treatment for investors should have been interpreted to mean 30% for vultures and 30% for settled bond holders. The ruling by Griesa to award 100% to holdouts is crazy and entirely his own remedy to appease the holdouts and not part of any written law anywhere. The ruling is bogus and the Supreme Court validated the bogus ruling.

Whether the ruling is bogus or not, the Supreme Court did not validate anything. It merely said there was no constitutional issue, and declined to hear the case. The court receives about 10,000 such petitions per annum, and accepts about 80 of them. For a case to be considered, four of the nine justices must sign on.

 

[dennisr]

Whether the ruling is bogus or not, the Supreme Court did not validate anything. It merely said there was no constitutional issue, and declined to hear the case. The court receives about 10,000 such petitions per annum, and accepts about 80 of them. For a case to be considered, four of the nine justices must sign on.

Supreme Court:
That is pure horse sh*t. The settled bond holders have been denied their $$$ (property) without due process.

 

[French jurist]

The meeting is with the banks.

What will Griesa decide about the 539 millions? (just 230 millions are under the NY jurisdiction).

- He cannot really do something else than releasing the 300 millions under foreign jurisdiction, but that would mean he goes backwards (and why blocking those funds in the first place?!)
- If he keeps blocking those funds under foreign jurisdiction, then more lawsuits will be filed, but not against Argentina this time (don't know if Griesa himself could get into legal problems because of this, if anyone knows)
- If he releases the funds under foreign jurisdiction & the negotiations are not succesful, then what? Will he finally give a new delay or will provoke a technical default (which won't be one on Argentine's side) on the bonds under US jurisdiction hold by the people who accepted the restructuration, thus weakening NY as a Financial center?

If there's a default and sovereign Argentine's assets are seized, then it's likely that US sovereign assets will be seized too... And that will become a very heavy situation indeed (plus all the consequences for both Argentina & the US)

Crazy situation