Judge Griesa Holds Argentina In Contempt

[ajoknoblauch]

Of course not!

I don't think a sovereign can be in comtempt...

As opposed to contemptuous, perhaps?

 

[Davidglen77]

Of course not!

Oh yes it can....and it is! Regardless of how much the Kirchner regime and "other airheads" that follow it deny it.

 

[ARbound]

How can it not be in contempt?

Whether you like or dislike the ruling is another thing, but in order to get the best
bang for their buck and the highest likelihood of debt swaps at a favorable rate
Argentina made the scheme under US/NY jurisdiction, which means they are subject
to US/NY law. When you ignore the ruling of a court in 99% of jurisdictions that
means you are in contempt.

They could have avoided this by restructuring in BA but who would buy the bonds
under Argentine "law". Jumping in front of a car to be able to arrest the occupant
anyone?

Also, the concept of an independent judiciary is so confusing to the government
in Argentina it scares me.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Well, if any law student is going to disagree with you, it is a good sign to see the difference between a vulgar display of power and the law.

 

[sergio]

If someone enters into an agreement, isn't that person required to adhere to it or face the consequences? Whether or not the agreement giving US courts jurisdiction was a good idea seems to be another matter. I just don't see how any party can sign an agreement and then expect to change the terms without the consent of the other party. How would expat property owners feel if a tenant decided to change the terms of a signed lease that resulted in non payment or reduced payment.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

If someone enters into an agreement, isn't that person required to adhere to it or face the consequences? Whether or not the agreement giving US courts jurisdiction was a good idea seems to be another matter. I just don't see how any party can sign an agreement and then expect to change the terms without the consent of the other party. How would expat property owners feel if a tenant decided to change the terms of a signed lease that resulted in non payment or reduced payment.

When a company is in bunckrupsy there is always a negociation and creditors have 2 options: to get less or nothing.

On the other hand, there are contracts where the risk (alea) determinantes the price/cost/profit. The higher the risk the bigger is the profit. This is how bonds works.

But the risk might happend and in fact happend.

 

[mimyr]

But the risk might happend and in fact happend.

Yes, exactly. This is the whole reason credit exists, because the entity that hands out loans is aware that there's a risk of not being paid back. They go into the deal knowing that. If you give a loan to someone and they can't pay it back, you don't throw the person into debtors prison. This isn't 19th century England. Should anyone be obligated to loan that person money in the future? Of course not. Should that person's life be ruined because they couldn't pay back the debt? Also, of course not.

 

[PhilipDT]

When a company is in bunckrupsy there is always a negociation and creditors have 2 options: to get less or nothing.

Yes but it's not the company who gets to decide how much less they get. Share holders are almost always the last to be paid

 

[semigoodlookin]

Yes, exactly. This is the whole reason credit exists, because the entity that hands out loans is aware that there's a risk of not being paid back. They go into the deal knowing that. If you give a loan to someone and they can't pay it back, you don't throw the person into debtors prison. This isn't 19th century England. Should anyone be obligated to loan that person money in the future? Of course not. Should that person's life be ruined because they couldn't pay back the debt? Also, of course not.

As you are comparing this situation to a personal loan system. People's lives do get very ruined because they cannot pay back the debt, some people lose everything. Yes loan companies assume a risk, but if you do not pay you can end up in court and you will have assets seized. This may not be 19th century England, but it is also not a world where people can take out loans, not pay them back, and simply say "well, you knew the risk when you lent me the money". Try that and see how long the possessions in your house last. Now, it is often in the best interest of the loan company to find some way to resolve the issue, even if that means getting back a reduced amount or negotiating for a tiny per week/month payment, but that does not mean they will take no action.

Are you really saying credit only exists because of the lenders risk? I think it exists for other reasons personally.

Of course, the difference between country and individual are different.

 

[ghost]

5 millón fine until RUFO expires it's cheap.

What is the exact date that RUFO expire?