Pay Your Debt Cfk

[Hybrid Ambassador]

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/08/23/elliott-vs-argentina-its-not-over-yet/

And the damn French giving a helping hand to Argentina :lol:
http://www.shearman.com/files/upload/NML_2013.07.26_-_France_Amicus_Brief.pdf

That's a strange decision: the Judges know that Argentina won't pay anyway and rule in a way that could create a mess in the Eurozone (although they were careful with the wording). Also to be noted: the guys behind those Vulture funds, are they good US taxpayers?! Reminds me of a story a few months ago: an oil tanker operated by a French company who had registered it in Luxemburg to save on taxes got hijacked... Since the Luxemburg Navy is likely made of two Dinghy boats, the French company turned to... France! Hence French taxpayers would pay for people who don't want to pay taxes in France...

Let's see how this will end

frenchie-san, but of course, tax evasion is the name of the game. The bigs keeps getting bigger! Look at Starback coffee operation in GB, they make a fortune in the UK but shows no whatso ever profit so not to pay a centavo in Taxes...!

 

[ghost]

There were many AMICUS
CURIAE petitions filed on this case. I don't think France is a bad guy for trying to cover their own potential losses. But....the Vultures and Paris Club will have to swallow very hard. The difference is that the Vultures will hound Argentina like a telephone debt collector and they will wait behind every port of call for any opportunity to snatch another ship/plane or train. France and the Paris Club will walk off.............. stage right like gentlemen.

 

[dennisr]

The law firms are high-fiving: legal fees.

 

[ghost]

The law firms are high-fiving: legal fees.

Yes. Someone once told me the legal fees for Argentina are running about $1Million per 2 months on this deal.

 

[scotttswan]

Yes. Someone once told me the legal fees for Argentina are running about $1Million per 2 months on this deal.

That seems like quite a low estimate to me.

 

[ghost]

That seems like quite a low estimate to me.

They don't do very much other than ignore the court and write some lame briefs that provide joke material in the court room

 

[dennisr]

Do we have a deal for you?

http://www.cronista.com/economiapolitica/El-Gobierno-ofrece-cambiar-y-pagar-en-la-Argentina-los-bonos-bajo-ley-de-EE.UU.-20130827-0082.html

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//www.cronista.com/economiapolitica/El-Gobierno-ofrece-cambiar-y-pagar-en-la-Argentina-los-bonos-bajo-ley-de-EE.UU.-20130827-0082.html&hl=en&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8

 

[Gringoboy]

This article on Aljazeera caught my eye and almost has me sympathising with this regime:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/08/201382871453651736.html

 

[Tgore1055]

This article on Aljazeera caught my eye and almost has me sympathising with this regime:
http://www.aljazeera...1453651736.html

Not me.......This article is a joke and the writers are biased (take a look at their titles). They also need to read up on the basics of economics and legal contracts. For one, They were wrong to state that a ruling for Arg. to pay back the "vultures" would open up the 93% to collect their money....therefore ruining the lives of an entire country.....The 93% agreed to a restructure of about 30 cents to the dollar and I'm certain they were bound in a new contract accepting that payment. There's no way in hell they can go back and sue for 100% payment. Argentina's "concern" about this factor is only and excuse not to pay and propaganda to get the country to agree with their so called point of view.

Secondly, saying that " the

outcome of all future sovereign debt negotiations will be subject to the whims of a handful of wealthy vulture fund speculators" is the biggest load of speculation crap I've ever heard.​

 

[EdRooney]

Not me.......This article is a joke and the writers are biased (take a look at their titles). They also need to read up on the basics of economics and legal contracts. For one, They were wrong to state that a ruling for Arg. to pay back the "vultures" would open up the 93% to collect their money....therefore ruining the lives of an entire country.....The 93% agreed to a restructure of about 30 cents to the dollar and I'm certain they were bound in a new contract accepting that payment. There's no way in hell they can go back and sue for 100% payment. Argentina's "concern" about this factor is only and excuse not to pay and propaganda to get the country to agree with their so called point of view.

Secondly, saying that " the

outcome of all future sovereign debt negotiations will be subject to the whims of a handful of wealthy vulture fund speculators" is the biggest load of speculation crap I've ever heard.

OK this is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but...

What a lovely example of internet argumentation TGNYC!

Let me summarise your contentions:

The entire article is a 'joke' based on the following evidence, studiously gleaned from a thorough reading by TGNYC:

1. The authors are biased because they are Lecturers at major UK universities (?)
2. TGNYC is "certain" about the details of the unpublished contracts signed by the other 93% of the bondholders, (although presenting no evidence of having read said contracts).

Then, if we are still unconvinced by this rhetorical tour-de-force, TGNYC hammers it home with the conclusion:

Argentina's "concern" about this factor is only and excuse not to pay and propaganda to get the country to agree with their so called point of view.

Of course, only those of us stricken with a craven need for logic would ask, whom is Argentina trying to convince? Argentina? To wit, the Argentine people need to be convinced that they should not pay their tax money to a vulture fund? And furthermore, at what point is someone's point of view not even a point of view, but only allegedly so?

The seventh grade teacher in me wants to litter your post with red marks and send you back for a re-do. Surely you can find something that better proves the article is a 'joke' than this random compilation of non-sequiturs.