Few weeks away from the ruling from the NY Court of Appeals from the Second Circuit and with the mistery about its content growing up, the IMF is back in the game.
I already referred to the "too little too late" IMF "Policy Paper" in my last post. Now we comment on the timing. Why now? Why not some weeks/months before or after? What about filing an Amicus Brief in January when everybody participated in the case (all kind of bondholders, institutions, academics, politicians, etc.). Anne Krueger participated by her own, not following IMF directions, I am sure. So, again, why now?
One option: the paper was very complicated (it was not I asure you) and time was needed, plus all the bureaucry and internal approvals involved. "And so we just finished it...". We have no idea about the upcoming ruling and since we got paid to prepare policy papers, why not now? Still one option.
Second option: we dont know anything about the upcoming ruling from the Court of Appeal, and so it is just a coincidence that we launched this paper right before such ruling. The fact that we opine that an eventual negative ruling against Argentina may ruin the existing restructuring debt mechanisms is not intended to press the judges. Hold on, the existing restructuring mechanism does not involve the IMF and our SDRM mechanism, right? Right. Then no, we need another option.
... Third option: we dont know anything about the ruling but... a negative ruling is not bad (in fact it is what we need)... because we want the Anne Krueger, SDRM, or the country bankruptcy supranational courts. So another judicial mess would convince everybody that we are right. And we need to explain it before the ruling, because after it would not be very nice. They would tell that we are late... Let`s speak up now, get our officers and academics ready and if an eventual negative ruling takes plac... then more chances for us. What a stick to the private creditors and sovereign countries that forced us to put the SDRM in the backburner for years and years. Now, it will be out time... It is not that we were waiting it, but.... it is very welcome!
Four option: we dont know anything about the ruling, but since we still want the SDRM but dont want a negative ruling against our good friend Argentina (of course we forgot to file an Amicus brief because the bureaucry times are very slow and the internal paperwork attempted against the speed and short notice that the court gave the friends - only two months), we better say something, just in case it is negative...
Fifth option: we know the ruling, and will be negative, so we want to revert it so that we can help our friend Argentina... Wait... that means that by doing that our SDRM will be dead for another 10 years? Yes. Then, why now? No idea.
Six option: we know the ruling and it will be negative, and there are no chances to overcome it, so it will be a mess. Less re-launch our Krueger SDRM. The rest will be done implicitly but we are ready. Plus the SDRM may be used with Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ecuador..... So everybody will need us. Let`s go Griesa, and of course these three judges (dont remember the names...). Raggi, Pooler and Parker! Right! The U.S. courts will open the doors for our system and for us...
Seven option: We know the ruling and it will positive. What a pitty... Less still promote our SDRM. Why? It does not make any sense, right? Right. But may be the U.S. Supreme Cour reverts and discipline our lets say it "hated Argentina" and we are the world firemen again.
Other options: your bet.
