Quick comment - Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit of New York will all the information necessary to issue the ruling

Last-minute appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court - What´s next?

The Argentine government yesterday filed a cert petition against the ruling issued by the U.S. Court of Appeal dated October 26, 2012.

Issues:

1) Whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will accept the certiorari petition.

2) When the decision will be taken.

3) Whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will request a bond to accept the petition.

4) Whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will order Argentina to comply with the eventual ruling from the Court of Appeals during the time it takes to decide the cert petition.

5) The final outcome if it accepts the cert petition.

If you need any advice or opinion about the above-mentioned points, please contact us:

Eugenio A Bruno
eab@garridolawfirm.com
00 54 11 4 850 4000

Argentina Debt and Sobereign Debt Litigation: The Next 15 Days

Argentina Debt: What will the U.S. Court of Appeals of New York resolve in 15 days, and what the government responses will be: Favorable/Negative - BNY Attachment Yes/No - Payment outside NY: Possible/Impossible - Re-reouting? - In contempt with the NY Justice? - Payment in Argentina?

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/results.cfm?RequestTimeout=50000000

Eugenio A Bruno
Garrido Law Firm

Upcoming NY Courts ruling on the Argentina Debt Legal Case - What to do if the decision is negative

 Upcoming NY Courts ruling on the Argentina Debt Legal Case - What to do, if something, if the decision is negative.
Eugenio A Bruno
Garrido Law Firm

Explanation in this recent paper (free and safe download from Social Sciences Network Services website): 
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2279461

The need to avoid a "Back to the Future"

Sovereign Debt Litigation: Revisiting the Preview of the upcoming Argentina Debt Ruling in NY

Reviewing the preview of the upcoming ruling from the N.Y. Court of Appeals

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2252210
Eugenio A Bruno
Garrido Law Firm

New Paper on Argentina Debt and Sovereign Debt Litigation

Sovereign Debt Restructuring: Covenant and Default Clauses in Sovereign and Corporate Bonds and How the Difference Among Them Impacts in the NMLCase Against the Republic of Argentina in New York

Just published in Social Science Research Network:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2279461

 

Eugenio A Bruno

Garrido Law Firm

 

Stats time: My take - Let me know about yours

Judicial Outcomes
Eugenio A Bruno
Garrido Law Firn
eab@garridolawfirm.com

"Pure Mathematics and Calculators"

• Argentina: it is like Series B in soccer.
• U.S.: draft for the NBA. And game 3 of the Heat-Spurs series.
• World soccer: who will qualify to the World Coup

 Judicial Outcomes


As the decision from the Court of Appeals approaches, it is a good time to discuss some general possibilites about its outcomes. Let´s go straight to the point. My take:

1) Decision on ratable payment: 9 to 1 in favor of the plaintiffs. It is very difficult that the judges ignore the contracts (indenture and terms and conditions of the bonds).

2) Decision on the injunctions on the Bank of New York: two months my take was 50-50%. Or tied in 50 to 50. In the last two weeks my perception may have changed. Why? Filings from Citibank Argentina and Eurobondholders discussing the effects of eventual ruling affecting the chain of payments (basically, "dont attach my payments"), the "policy paper" from the IMF (coupled with complete lack of being friend of Argentina through the filing of an Amicus Brief) ("we want the injunctions because that would prove that Anne Krueger and the IMF were right in promoting the SDRM and the market-solutions to solve defaults don´t work) and significant silence from the U.S. government ("is the U.S. a true friend of Argentina?" - of course you may ask the opposite question if you want, but I would not recommend it). So, now my take is 7 to 3 towards the plaintiff. Still, 30% is good, as Wall Street and the majority of the legal community in NY considers that it is dead cause, a sort of 9.5 to 0.5.

3) U.S. Supreme Court? Again, I am in minority again. I think the supreme tribunal will accept the case. My colleagues think I am wrong. I dont think so. My take is towards acceptance. My doubt is whether or not the Supreme Court will request a bond for the appeal, some kind of escrow payment by Argentina. High chances it will.

4) Decision from the U.S. Court: too soon.

And what about paying outside New York? Give me a call. 

Singer and Dart´s counterattack: "U.S. Courts - reject the petition to have this case litigated in Belgium"

Response from the Litigating Holdouts to the Belgian Case

Aurelius and all other parties to the NML case in NY filed a letter asking the NY Court of Appeals to reject the petition from the Eurobondholders to have a Belgian courts hearing the case and deciding about it.

The letter says:

"The highly publicized and widely known litigation before Judge Griesa and this Court
has been pending for more than two years. At the eleventh hour, the Euro Bondholders thrust
themselves into this litigation raising various highly attenuated and extraneous issues and
objections, all of which have been given a respectful audience by this Court and the district
court. Now, while this Court considers its decision, they have filed a last-minute collateral attack
on these proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction of their choosing. Needless to say, U.S. courts do
not defer to such later-filed proceedings. Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines,
731 F.2d 909, 927 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“The mere filing of a suit in one forum does not cut off the
preexisting rights of an independent forum to regulate matters subject to its prescriptive
jurisdiction.”)."

"... Intervenors’ suggestion that this Court should in some fashion defer to the Belgian
litigation that they have decided to initiate is unfounded, is unwarranted, and borders on the
outrageous. Indeed, it is audacious in the extreme for these intervenors to bring an essentially
unrelated case in an unrelated jurisdiction for the obvious purpose, at the last minute, of derailing
or delaying the proceedings of this Court. This Court should, of course, handle the pending ng
expedited appeal as it otherwise would, without regard to the pendency of foreign litigation."

So the NY litigants want the ruling to include "ALL" payments made to the performing bonds, including the ones subject to Argentine law and now also the ones subject to English law, both payable outside the United States. In the case of Argentina, the payment systems uses the Central Bank and Citibank Argentina, and in the case of Europe, The Bank of New Europe. Still more litigation and uncertainty. The NY Court of Appeals should not affect these payments (Argentina and Euro bonds), but in the past the U.S. courts took jurisdiction over bonds issued exclusively under Argentine law, but with certain contacts with the U.S., such as road-shows, certain account payments, etc. This aspect would be the key in my opinion.

Eugenio A Bruno
eab@garridolawfirm.com

This material may only be used with express citation.

New York courts´ injunctions are not welcome in Europe... at all! Not another Normandie and D-Day

There is an European judicial audience now, with respect to Argentine defaulting and perfoming bonds
Eugenio A Bruno
Garrido Law Firm
eab@garridolawfirm.com




The Europeans, as the Americans, want an audience on the Argentina legal case, and they will have it. Particularly on June 25, the Brussels Commercial Court will hold a hearing. The legal proceedings have been initiated by certain holders of Argentine perforning bonds subject to English law (i.e. not Griesa´s laws as they would love to express I guess). The case is denominated Knighthead Capital Management,
LLC et al. v. Bank of New York S.A., et al.

The plaintiffs are from Belgium and hold euro-denominated bonds (“Euro Bonds”) issued in Argentina’s 2005 and 2010 exchange offers. The Euro Bonds are denominated in euros, governed by English law, and payments thereon are made wholly outside the U.S. through foreign entities.

According to the recent petition, the Belgian plaintiffs seek an order directing defendants Bank of New York Mellon S.A., Euroclear S.A., and Euroclear Bank S.A. (“Belgian Defendants”)—all Belgian entities—to
comply with their alleged duties under Belgian law and the Trust Indenture governing Argentina’s
exchange bonds. This means that the eventual injunctions from America, holding the whole BNY group around the world liable of complying with the NY court orders even with respect to foreign bonds, should, according to the Belgian plaintiffs fall somewhere in the Atlantic right before Europe (not another Normandie and D-Day)

On May 30, 2013, the Belgian Court accepted expedited briefing and
scheduled a determinative hearing for June 25, 2013.

The notification to the NY Court of Appeals from the Second Circuit was filed today and expresses that "as the Euro Bondholders have explained, the District Court’s injunction against foreign
parties impermissibly imposes obligations irreconcilable with foreign parties’ duties under local
law. The Belgian proceeding will conclusively determine the Belgian Defendants’ obligations
under Belgian law. We respectfully request that this Court find the injunction inapplicable to
foreign entities altogether, or, at minimum, withhold judgment respecting the injunction’s
applicability to Belgian Defendants pending determination by the Belgian court. By holding the
injunction applicable to Belgian entities acting on Belgian soil, this Court could contravene a
Belgian court’s definitive interpretation of Belgian Defendants’ obligations under Belgian law,
thereby violating the well-established principle that courts cannot require foreign nationals “to
refrain from doing an act in another state that is required by [that state’s] law.”

Therefore if the petition is accepted there will be a dispute among courts, Americans v Europeans, with the Bank of New York as hostage as the European courts will reject the injunctions and order the BNY to continue paying the eurobonds. Of course, the logical questions are what the NY courts will do and what the consequences for the status of the Argentine bonds will be. Additional analysis coming up soon.