Judgement Left Intact: Vulture Funds

[ben]

In the real world a debtor who cannot pay one's debts has the right to go to the lender and attempt to restructure those debts in good faith. The only problem is that Argentina doesn't live in the real world. They told their creditors that they were only going to pay a small percentage of what they owed - take it or take a hike. Most creditors took that offer.

A small percentage said, "Ni pedo!" and took them to court.

During the proceedings Argentina routinely acted like they were above the law (to which they signed) even to the point of insinuating they would not follow the Supreme Court's directives. That has a tendency to piss off judges.

CFK can rant and rave tonight about the "Yanquis de Mierda" but Argentina's BEST move now would be negotiate a settlement with Elliot. This would pave the way finally for access to international credit markets.

Yes.

One can wonder if the vulture funds would negotiate in good faith or not, but we'll never know, because one can safely assume - based on Argentina's prior conduct - that they were simply told to go screw themselves. To which the funds simply replied, "F*** me? No, f*** you".

One can safely assume that the vulture funds would rather settle than have Argentina default. With that in mind, there's certainly room to negotiate. That they do not want to negotiate is - per my limited knowledge of the case - pure propaganda on the part of the Argentine govt. If, as one can safely imagine, they were told to talk to the wall and subsequently chose to talk to the court, - what do you sue for in court? To force the other side to negotiate? No, you sue for the maximum you can win. Then - with the sides' respective positions and the strengths/weaknesses staked out - one can negotiate, out of court.

The question is a personal one - if the government would (will) rather preside over a sane negotiation, or leave with their noses high and leave the mess to their successors. They did finally make a deal with Repsol, once it was clear that that would make it easier for them to move on.

 

[steveinbsas]

Reagan was stupid, but not quite that stupid (though he did address Brazilians as Bolivians at an official banquet).

Was that in a foreign country, Washington D.C., or one of the fifty-seven US States?

And while we're on the subject of gaffes, at least he wasn't "stupid" enough to call the Malvinas (aka Falklands) the Maldives.

 

[Gringoboy]

I sincerely hope that KFC doesn't dig the hole even deeper tonight.
I expect a rant, but a certain amount of decorum from her may be required.
Don't normally, but I may tune in tonight.

 

[scotttswan]

“The Anglo-Argentine Investments Promotion & Protection Treaty”, which was signed in London in December 1990 and sanctioned on 4/11/1992 by Argentina’s Congress as Law No. 24.184.

Article 5 gave the UK control over Argentina's armed forces, especially in Patagonia, where there are vast US, UK, and Israeli investments

Article 12 provided that Argentina's economy was to be "fully and completely deregulated" and led to public companies, (oil, mining, railways, highways, airlines, electricity, gas and water utilities, pension funds, postal services, insurance and reinsurance, and banks), being privatised and sold off at bargain prices. This same article also provided that foreign “investors” were to be given the fullest protection, rights and assistance.

You challenged me to back up what I said, and there it is. I just had to dig a little bit. Note that some of the translations are my own, and probably not word perfect.

Are you just re quoting russia today or did you actually go look up this agreement?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/273129/2278.pdf

ARTICLE 5
Expropriation
(l) Investments of investors of either Contracting Party shall not be nationalised,
expropriated or subjected to measures having effect equivalent to nationalisation or
expropriation (hereinafter referred to as “ expropriation”) in the territory of the other
Contracting Party except for a public purpose related to the internal needs of that
Contracting Party on a non-discriminatory basis and against prompt, adequate and
effective compensation. Such compensation shall amount to the genuine value of the
investment expropriated immediately before the expropriation or before the impending
expropriation became public knowledge, whichever is the earlier,\shall include interest at a
normal commercial rate until the date of payment, shall be made without delay, be effectively realizable and be freely transferable. The investor affected shall have a right,
under the law of the Contracting Party making the expropriation, to prompt review, by a
judicial or other independent authority of that Contracting Party, of his or its case and of
the valuation of his or its investment in accordance with the principles set out in this
paragraph.
(2) Where a Contracting Party expropriates the assets of a company which is
incorporated or constituted under the law in force in any part of its own territory, and in
which investors of the other Contracting Party own shares, the provisions of paragraph (1)
of this Article shall apply.


ARTICLE 12
Territorial Extension
At the time of the entry into force of this Agreement, or at any time thereafter, the
provisions of this Agreement may be extended to such territories for whose international
relations the Government of the United Kingdom are responsible, as may be agreed
between the Contracting Parties in an Exchange of Notes.

 

[thorsten]

Ouch, that was a quick KO

My favorite part: You challenged me to back up what I said, and there it is. I just had to dig a little bit. Note that some of the translations are my own, and probably not word perfect.

 

[toongeorges]

There are times when Keynes makes sense and, except for countries like Argentina, this is one of them.

Keynes did not understand politicians. He said they should spend in bad times and make surpluses during good times to balance out the debt. When was the last time politicians balanced out debt?

 

[Redpossum]

Are you just re quoting russia today or did you actually go look up this agreement?

https://www.gov.uk/g...273129/2278.pdf

OK, so I had the two clauses switched. Other than that, what's your point? See the last three words of Clause 12, "exchange of notes"

And quoting RT is certainly no worse than quoting the BBC or the NYT.

 

[ben]

For starters, when quoting passages nearly verbatim, it's good manners (as well as more honest) to make it clear you're quoting.

 

[thorsten]

But he made it clear: "Note that some of the translations are my own, and probably not word perfect." - oh wait...

 

[scotttswan]

OK, so I had the two clauses switched. Other than that, what's your point? See the last three words of Clause 12, "exchange of notes"

And quoting RT is certainly no worse than quoting the BBC or the NYT.

For starters, when quoting passages nearly verbatim, it's good manners (as well as more honest) to make it clear you're quoting.

this.

and the treaty has nothing to do with what you Russia Today claims it does?

maybe it was some other "Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Argentina for the Promotion and Protection of Investments
London, 11 December 1990"