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.