Effects Of A Default On Expats

[ghost]

If you intended to prove that the US offer now a legal framework less secure for Sovereign financing than London or Paris, you are right on spot.

Ironic maybe, illegal not (Griesa's decision about bonds outside his jurisdiction is illegal = there was a similar case years ago between Nicaragua & NML = NML of course lost).

I am not sure about "illegal" some of the bonds and the settlement rules do fall with in his preview.; But the pari passu clause seems to tie the actions of jurusdictions to the action of one and the many regardless of jurisdiction. This is complex and I am sure that Singer et al is relying on complexity to muddy the waters.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

It was for cases like this that Shakespeare coined "a plague on both your houses."

 

[French jurist]

I am not sure about "illegal" some of the bonds and the settlement rules do fall with in his preview.; But the pari passu clause seems to tie the actions of jurusdictions to the action of one and the many regardless of jurisdiction. This is complex and I am sure that Singer et al is relying on complexity to muddy the waters.

Indeed highly complex. I remember having to discuss cases of International Private Law back in my university years and it was no fun: like a couple gets married in Greece, has kids in Japan and divorces in Germany = discuss the various aspects.
Or, more anecdotical (and I even think it was a real case, not sure) = a polygamist comes to live in France with his 3 wives, how to satisfy the duty of loyalty?

More details in the link below (Argentina's version though):
As pointed out by the Euro Bondholders, in the context of the euro-denominated Exchange Bonds, that subsequent transfer of monies involves entities locatedoutside the United States.
See
Corrected Euro Bondholders Br. at 10-14. Thus, “this Courtunambiguously does not have jurisdiction over the foreign third parties that process the EuroBond payments and that were specifically named in the Injunctions.”
See id.
Likewise, “thefinancial instruments which are held in accounts maintained at Euroclear Bank are subject to a protective regime enshrined in the Belgian Royal Decree nr. 62 of November 10, 1967,coordinated on January 27, 2004, on the deposit of fungible financial instruments and thesettlement of transactions in those instruments . . . . Because of the importance of the EuroclearSystem on the international and national financial markets, the Euroclear System is moreoverrecognized and protected by the Belgian Act of April 28, 1999, implementing the European Directive 98/26/EC of May 19, 1998, on settlement finality in payment and securities settlementsystems.”
See
July 9, 2014 Declaration of Fabien Debarre

http://fr.scribd.com...1-de-Julio-2014

If the EU takes a more active role (maybe... Although it's too often inefficient), then there's a chance to put some order in this mess.

 

[French jurist]

Anyway, partial default or not at the end of the month, seems this will end up (or keep going on) in an even bigger fight.

BTW, there's an US fugitive wanted by Argentina.

I guess everyone agrees he should be arrested and sent here? Right?

http://dailybail.com...rmer-us-tr.html

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Anyway, partial default or not at the end of the month, seems this will end up (or keep going on) in an even bigger fight.

BTW, there's an US fugitive wanted by Argentina.

I guess everyone agrees he should be arrested and sent here? Right?

http://dailybail.com...rmer-us-tr.html

Anybody who collaborated with Reagan is almost by definition a criminal.

 

[French jurist]

A partial default is now the most likely (thought not) but the saga is far from over.

I wonder the following:
- Can Argentina default only on the NY restructured bonds (excluding the EU + Japan ones) the country has tried to pay through the BONY? Kiciloff mentioned the possibility finding another way to pay them all, except that Griesa's decision forces Argentina into default for the NY bonds (I guess he already anticipated that, but we know only a small part of the story).


My logic behind that: If there are CDS on the restructured bonds (no idea) which get defaulted again, then the Vultures (they obviously did such hedging) would receive money, things would be over for those specific bonds in NY. Then the Vultures would need to keep fighting for the restructured bonds under other jurisdictions (obviously less friendly to him, not even mentioning the Argentine ones).

Of course, there's a risk other bondholders ask for an immediate payment in case of a technical/partial default but let's keep it simple for now.

 

[AmigoArtistico]

... but let's keep it simple for now.

Very funny.

 

[ghost]

A partial default is now the most likely (thought not) but the saga is far from over.

I wonder the following:
- Can Argentina default only on the NY restructured bonds (excluding the EU + Japan ones) the country has tried to pay through the BONY? Kiciloff mentioned the possibility finding another way to pay them all, except that Griesa's decision forces Argentina into default for the NY bonds (I guess he already anticipated that, but we know only a small part of the story).


My logic behind that: If there are CDS on the restructured bonds (no idea) which get defaulted again, then the Vultures (they obviously did such hedging) would receive money, things would be over for those specific bonds in NY. Then the Vultures would need to keep fighting for the restructured bonds under other jurisdictions (obviously less friendly to him, not even mentioning the Argentine ones).

Of course, there's a risk other bondholders ask for an immediate payment in case of a technical/partial default but let's keep it simple for now.

Makes your head spin....but, at the end of the day the courts objective is to make unreasonable people do reasonable things. It will come down to negotiation and settlement or it will corkscrew out of control and Argentina will bleed to death from another self inflicted wound.

 

[French jurist]

Makes your head spin....but, at the end of the day the courts objective is to make unreasonable people do reasonable things. It will come down to negotiation and settlement or it will corkscrew out of control and Argentina will bleed to death from another self inflicted wound.

Maybe. We know zilch about the negotiations after all, but we know CFK (can she politically go backwards now? Whatever the reasons), and the Vultures (would they accept a low/average amount? The ATFA website is also clearly political).

Just sad for the Argentines caught in the middle. (and Macri recommending to pay the Vultures. He would also provoke a mega-devaluation, reprivatize YPF, cut the planes, etc. = same old story again & again).

 

[Churchill]

I find these debates interesting but tend to stay out of them so as not to expose my woeful ignorance of the situation. However, after reading the news this morning (Argentina says solution impossible by end of the moneth unless a stay is put in place, judge refuses to put stay in place blah blah), am I right in thinking that it is now highly likely that Argentina will indeed default?