Peter Pan, from Neverland to "Never get paid" under these circumstances

Eugenio A Bruno
Garrido Law Firm
eab@garridolawfirm

Statements from the recent filing from NML and other plaintiffs, against the Republicof Argentina

FIRST:
"With its latest submission in this Court, the Republic of Argentina continues
its long and consistent pattern of defaulting on its contractual obligations, defying
the laws of the United States (which its contracts expressly invoked), and showing
contempt for the courts to whose jurisdiction it unreservedly submitted. The government
of Argentina plainly believes the rule of law does not apply to it."

I understand the arguments and follow your logic, OK.

SECOND:
"Argentina has defaulted on its indebtedness pursuant to instruments it created
to raise funds under the laws of the United States."

Of course, no doubt.

THIRD:
"Argentina undertook a “unilateral
and coercive approach to [its] debt restructuring,” rejecting practices that
have allowed other “[s]overeign bond restructurings” to be “resolved quickly,
without severe creditor coordination problems, and involving little litigation.”

Hold on here. First, I dont agree that the restructurings were unilateral and coercive. There were agreements with 93% of bondholders. Visit the balcklaw dictionary, or better a plain vanilla dictionary and the meanings of those two words will not say what the statement means.
I agree, though, that the practices used have not helped to resolve the default quickly. And also, due to it, there was litigation. No doubt.

FOURTH:

"In keeping with that approach, it refused to comply with its explicit
commitment to treat its “payment obligations” on the bonds held by Appellees “at
least equally with . . . its other . . . unsubordinated External Indebtedness".

Pari Passu!!!!!. Right, the Lock Law violated the traditional interpretation of pari passu. But the Court of Appeals took a new interpretation, of which there is a legitimate legal dispute. I am not sure about the novel interpretation. Continued litigation for sure on this topic.

FIFTH:

"The district court found as fact that Argentina had ample resources to pay
Appellees, as well as the Exchange Bondholders, and that the balance of the equities
overwhelmingly supported the remedy ordered."

What? Are you serious? We are not talking about USD 1,330 millon (1,3b), which by itself is huge enough. But the "me toos" who I assure you do exist, have debt for USD 20,000 million (20b). Please show me where that money would be, Peter Pan.

SIXTH:

"The Court further held that Appellees “were completely
within their rights to reject the 25-cents-on-the-dollar exchange offers” that Argentina
had made in 2005 and 2010."

Come on, have you heard about the GDP Warrants?

SEVENTH:

"Argentina offers to eliminate those obligations in return for new,
deeply-discounted, potentially unenforceable, and unmarketable paper, payable
decades hence. Indeed, according to Argentina’s own math, those new securities
would be worth less than 15% of what Argentina owes on the FAA Bonds."

More Peter Pan: Argentina could never ever at this judicial instance offer more, because of the clause called "Most Favored Creditors" (not RUFO, horrible name and lack of application). Anything better to plaintiffs, would need to be offered to the exchange bondholders. Who pays that bill?

EIGHT:

"Argentina’s response manifests
yet again its contempt for its obligations, the laws of the United States, and
the orders of U.S. courts....Argentina’s counsel
declared that Argentina would not “voluntarily obey” any order “other than”
the one it proposed. This is exactly how Argentina has dealt with creditors for the last decade: unilaterally
dictate pennies-on-the-dollar “exchange offers,” and threaten to pay nothing
if the offer is rejected. Argentina has now treated the Court the same way; that
is the very antithesis of “good faith.”

No question, too far those comments back in the hearing.

NINTH:

"The district court’s remedy is manifestly within its broad discretion to fashion relief
in equity, is fully consonant with the governing contractual agreements, and
should be affirmed."

We want all and now!. Of course, the want that. As Peter Pan wanted to be a child forever.
The strategy will not get to where they want: get paid, all and now. Why? Because Argentina does not have the financial resources to deal with the 20b of claims. The average judicial claim collected through courts against sovereigns (from Peru to Brazil, touching Africa) is USD 200, several ceros lesser.
Keep going, to Neverland.