World media in overdrive on Argentina

[perry]

Macri Was Supposed To Save Argentina, Now He Can't Pay The Bills

The IMF has no choice but to give them the planned $5.4 billion, or markets will smell default.

www.forbes.com

The world media is in overdrive in presenting a negative image on Argentinas future . For me I find it very distressing that this unique beautiful country is being LED to económic ruin. I feel also pity for the vultures who are waiting in the sidelines to make profit on devalued assets. But what will they inherit taking Venezuela as a model . I prefer to live in a stable middle income society where human values and principles are paramount.

 

[elhombresinnombre]

Sorry but Forbes is not "The World Media" and sadly the truth is that, as in Argentina's previous crises, "The World" isn't really that interested.

 

[perry]

Sorry but Forbes is not "The World Media" and sadly the truth is that, as in Argentina's previous crises, "The World" isn't really that interested.

You are very wrong Argentina is of great interest to the élite due to having the most important natural resources on the planet. Patagonia is the jewel in the crown and could be taken away from us for payment of the external debt. Read up on it and inform yourself

 

[Ceviche]

Patagonia could be taken away from us

Since when did you own Patagonia?

And if you really considered yourself one of "us", you would not be jumping ship in crisis.

 

[perry]

Since when did you own Patagonia?

And if you really considered yourself one of "us", you would not be jumping ship in crisis.

Since when did you own Patagonia?

And if you really considered yourself one of "us", you would not be jumping ship in crisis.

Number one I am not jumping and live in Argentina the majority of the year . Patagonia is a asset of the argentinian people and being a citizen of this country it is of great interest to me that it is not ceded for payment of external debt in case of a default . Many people in the know concede this is a possibility and certainly Patagonia is a immensely rich land of great interest to the elite .

 

[TheDonald]

If cession of Patagonian lands as part of an Argentine debt restructuring is a concern, I would sleep soundly at night. This is so unlikely as to not even be worthy of consideration. First, the original bond indentures, which will govern any Argentine debt restructuring, did not collateralize the debt with sovereign Argentine territory. Second, institutional creditors restructure debt financially, they don't take land. Banks repossess houses and cars. Mafia loan sharks break kneecaps. Institutional creditors work through attorneys to negotiate financial restructurings. Third, I would imagine that cession of land in exchange for debt to international lenders probably violates some aspect of the Argentine constitution. I don't have that as a fact, but most sovereign nations have clauses like this in their operative governing laws. Fourth, such an exchange would likely be politically impossible.

There is only one modern situation (that I am aware of) in which this scenario occurs: the absolute scum of the earth Chinese communist government. For several years now, the communists in China have given below market bids for infrastructure projects to 3rd world countries. The projects must involve large percentage of Chinese labor and corporate resources. The loan terms are generous, but beyond the means of the borrower/nation. When the nation falls behind on the debt, the scum in China take the project and viola - they have a new strategic port or bridge or toll road, at the expense of the 3rd world country.

China is bidding on a dredging project in Argentina right now. Look out!

 

[perry]

Inform yourself the law in Argentina was changed in 2017 and in case that the foreign debt is not paid back our resources and land are up for grabs ,

En los Decretos mencionados (29/2017 y 231/2017) por Barcesat se indica que “La renuncia a oponer la defensa de inmunidad soberana no implicará renuncia alguna respecto de la inmunidad de la REPÚBLICA ARGENTINA con relación a la ejecución de los bienes que se detallan a continuación” y presenta un listado de bienes, cuidando de excluir los contenidos en el artículo 236.

DECRETO 29/2017
De acuerdo al texto del Decreto 29/2017, los siguientes bienes quedan hipotecados y comprometidos en todas las tomas de deuda realizadas.

 

[TheDonald]

Inform yourself the law in Argentina was changed in 2017 and in case that the foreign debt is not paid back our resources and land are up for grabs ,

En los Decretos mencionados (29/2017 y 231/2017) por Barcesat se indica que “La renuncia a oponer la defensa de inmunidad soberana no implicará renuncia alguna respecto de la inmunidad de la REPÚBLICA ARGENTINA con relación a la ejecución de los bienes que se detallan a continuación” y presenta un listado de bienes, cuidando de excluir los contenidos en el artículo 236.

DECRETO 29/2017
De acuerdo al texto del Decreto 29/2017, los siguientes bienes quedan hipotecados y comprometidos en todas las tomas de deuda realizadas.
View attachment 6091View attachment 6091

I understand the clause you highlighted in Article 1 to be a legal double negative, i.e. the Republic of Argentina does NOT waive its right to sovereign immunity over the following assets. In other words, Argentina retains its right to sovereign immunity over those assets listed "a-j."

Given that niether Decreto 29/2017 nor Article 236 appear in the first set of text you highlight, I do not understand how the two texts in the screen shots correlate. I can't find the context for connection that you imply in your post. I see where you have added 236 on your own and made the connection yourself, after the quotation marks in your second paragraph. But I don't see the connection in the two documents you posted. There is no mention of Decreto 29/2017 nor Articulo 236 in the first text you highlight.

In a bond indenture, if the two clauses are legally interdependent, they must cite one another. Or at least one must make clear reference to the other. But in the two screen shots you provide, there is no correlation.

 

[perry]

I understand the clause you highlighted in Article 1 to be a legal double negative, i.e. the Republic of Argentina does NOT waive its right to sovereign immunity over the following assets. In other words, Argentina retains its right to sovereign immunity over those assets listed "a-j."

Given that niether Decreto 29/2017 nor Article 236 appear in the first set of text you highlight, I do not understand how the two texts in the screen shots correlate. I can't find the context for connection that you imply in your post. I see where you have added 236 on your own and made the connection yourself, after the quotation marks in your second paragraph. But I don't see the connection in the two documents you posted. There is no mention of Decreto 29/2017 nor Articulo 236 in the first text you highlight.

In a bond indenture, if the two clauses are legally interdependent, they must cite one another. Or at least one must make clear reference to the other. But in the two screen shots you provide, there is no correlation.

I have spoken to the best lawyers in Argentina about this and they all said that Argentinas natural resources and assets include territory are vulnerable to this new decreto . Bajo cero can maybe enlighten us ?

 

[Wade K.]

It does beg the question if Argentina has such valuable assets why aren't they mining them for the betterment of their country?