Should Argentina Default On Its Debt?

Should Argentina Default on its Debt?

  • Yes, she should default

    Votes: 6 17.1%
  • No, she should NOT default

    Votes: 16 45.7%
  • There is a "Third Way"

    Votes: 7 20.0%
  • No Opinion

    Votes: 6 17.1%

  • Total voters
    35
Do not know about imperialism my friend but something is definitely rotten in Denmark

http://www.politicap...-funds/?lang=en

Excellent article. It should be mentionned too that the owners of those Vulture funds evade mostly taxes (while giving money to the Republican party, likely among others).

A firm vs. a country... Well, if they want to play like big boys, some hitmen should be sent after them, that would be fun (and better a few deaths than thousands).
 
Judge Griesa's ruling, and the Supreme Court's decision not to review it, is not a moral issue- it's a matter of LAW, plain and simple. Argentina made the decision in 1994 to sell these sovereign bonds under New York law AND waived their sovereign immunity for this particular bond issue. Why did Argentina make these decisions? Because it allowed them to sell these bonds near par at a reasonable interest rate. Why do investors choose to buy bonds issued under New York law? Because New York (and the USA a a whole) is a place with strong contract law and a legitimate and independent judicial system.

That being said, there is an almost zero chance that Argentina will default as a result of this ruling ordering that all bondholders be treated equally; as incompetent as the Kirchner administration is, even they can see it is not in their or the nation's interest to default. The K's have been attempting to get the debt situation in order via settling up with Repsol, Paris Club, CIADI, etc and entering into default would unravel everything and bring the country back to pariah status. This ruling really only puts Argentina immediately on the hook for $1.5 Billion USD; as this "better offer" was not voluntarily agreed on by Argentina and was in fact imposed on them by Griesa, the dreaded RUFO clause in the 2005 and 2010 exchanges would not have a legal leg to stand on. Almost certainly the government will negotiate with the beneficiaries of the ruling and will come up with an agreement to pay less than half the $1.5 Billion USD in cash and the rest in bonds.
 
US Embassy Staff Tomorrow?

A4S_iran113011d_201365a_8col.jpg

Hundreds of buses and cars loaded with women and children, from Tupac Amaru and Partido Evita heading up Sta. Fe Ave. and Pueyrredon at 16:00 hours to siege the US Embassy :cool:
T
. Huge banners reading Yanquis Fuera de America Latina, and Fuera Los Buitres...!!

Stay tuned
 
Hundreds of buses and cars loaded with women and children, from Tupac Amaru and Partido Evita heading up Sta. Fe Ave. and Pueyrredon at 16:00 hours to siege the US Embassy :cool:
T
. Huge banners reading Yanquis Fuera de America Latina, and Fuera Los Buitres...!!

Stay tuned
Yanqui go home! - but leave your money. A very old tune.
 
Actually, if Griesa's political/judicial decision kills a few thousands of Argentines with an even bigger crisis, should the Argentines say thank you?! I'm not really an US basher, but this is clearly imperialism.
Which other laws should a court ignore? based on which criteria?

Appendix 3 The terms of the bonds
"…… The republic has in the fiscal agency agreement irrevocably submitted to the jurisdiction of any New York state or federal court sitting in the Borough of Manhattan … The republic agrees that a final nonappealable judgment in any such related proceeding ('the related judgment') shall be conclusive and binding upon it and may be enforced in any specified court or in any other courts to the jurisdiction of which the republic is or may be subject (the 'other courts') by a suit upon such judgment. ... the republic has hereby irrevocably agreed not to claim and has irrevocably waived such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by the laws of such jurisdiction … "

http://www.bailii.or...iv/2010/41.html
 
Which other laws should a court ignore? based on which criteria?

Appendix 3 The terms of the bonds
"…… The republic has in the fiscal agency agreement irrevocably submitted to the jurisdiction of any New York state or federal court sitting in the Borough of Manhattan … The republic agrees that a final nonappealable judgment in any such related proceeding ('the related judgment') shall be conclusive and binding upon it and may be enforced in any specified court or in any other courts to the jurisdiction of which the republic is or may be subject (the 'other courts') by a suit upon such judgment. ... the republic has hereby irrevocably agreed not to claim and has irrevocably waived such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by the laws of such jurisdiction … "

http://www.bailii.or...iv/2010/41.html

The meaning, though, depends on Cristina's interpretation.
 
Problem with Griesa's approach is the unusual interpretation of the pari passu clause.

Latins have a different legal/justice system anyway. (And Dennis article shows that what did the Vulture funds might be illegal, although I did read it quickly).

Same stuff with the 16 billions USD fine against BNP-Paribas. Separation of Powers is not in good shape it seems. We could mention the Bush Jr elections too (vast joke), etc.
 
Argentina will pay the Fondos Buitres wirh a Bond,( Bonar 2028), the Bonds will be bought by a Major Bank and deliver the cash to the Vulture Funds. End of the Bravado --- 100 % of the holdouts will be paid said Cristina today.
 
Back
Top