Argentina Sovereign Litigation: Why a firework battle between "Vulture Funds" and individual bondholders against other individual bondholders?
It seems that all the briefs filed and the long oral arguments heard by the Court of Appeals were not enough by certain individual bondholders. On Monday, a law firm from the City of Philadelphia, brotherly love aside, that represents 600 retail investors from Italy and Argentina who holds Argentina defaulted bonds, wants a "say" in the case and a "piece of the cake" of the eventual attachable assets, like NML.The "dont let me outside" brief from Duane Morris it is a new Amicus Brief (the third one filed in the last months), backing, as a formal purpose, NML's legal position. The brief was well-written and it is a very smart strategy, being part of the benefits of NML´s judgments.
But the problem for Duane Morris' clients is that they are not technically formal plaintiffs under the NML case, in which all that is under stake is the pari passu discussion and the flows of payment that go through the Bank of New York. "Let me in!" they seems to say.
Of course, "Hold on" NML immediately responded, in a formal opposing brief filed minutes after the Duane Morris' brief.
Traduced from the opposing brief filed right after the Duane Morris brief: "You dont belong to this case, even though we both have Argentina defaulted bonds and have sued Argentina before the very same tribunal (Griesa´s). You were friends of us when you filed your amicus brief back in January, but that´s it. We dont want you around here as plaintiffs for sure, but not even as friends anymore. You are delaying the issuance of the judgment and, also, want a piece of our cake!"
Technically NML argued:
"Every party to this proceeding—and every non-party with an asserted connection to the issues before the Court—has been heard at length. The Duane Morris Individual Bondholders themselves were fully heard in their amicus brief filed on January 16, 2013."
"We note that the Duane Morris Individual Bondholders refer to themselves as “plaintiffs.” They are not plaintiffs in this action; they are judgment creditors of Argentina in other cases. We therefore refer to them as the Duane Morris Individual Bondholders. We further note that Argentina and non-party appellant
the Exchange Bondholder Group likewise have objected to the Duane Morris Individual Bondholders’ proposed filing. ... All of the Appellees join in this opposition and object to the proposed filing."
" The Court’s March 1 Order directed Argentina to submit a payment proposal, and that order was crystal clear with respect to whether responses would be accepted: “Should a response be sought from any other party to Argentina’s submission, a further order will issue from the court.” On April 2, the Court specifically directed “Plaintiffs-Appellees” to “file a response to the payment proposal submitted by the Republic of Argentina.” These orders do not invite another round of briefing and the additional delays that would ensue. To the contrary, the March 1 Order unambiguously declares that a response from “any other party” is not welcome unless and until the Court orders it. The Court ordered Appellees to respond, and Appellees filed a single joint submission. To state the obvious, that most recent order did not invite or authorize a response from individual non-party bondholders or anyone other than Appellees."
"The parties have respected these orders; the Duane Morris Individual Bondholders’ filing directly contradicts them.For that reason alone, the Duane Morris Individual Bondholders’ motion should be denied."
"Moreover, this Court’s March 1 Order directed Argentina to state what it is prepared to pay Appellees specifically, not what it is willing to pay adversaries in other cases.The Duane Morris Individual Bondholders’ proposed filing also sheds no light on the issues before the Court; it largely repeats some of the basic points made in Appellees’ response. Nor do the Duane Morris Individual Bondholders offer a novel perspective on this matter— the Varela Appellees (whose bonds are actually at stake in this litigation) are fully capable of speaking to the effects Argentina’s behavior has had on individual bondholders.
What is more, granting the Duane Morris Individual Bondholders’ motion would surely draw a forest’s worth of proposed amicus filings from the non-party appellants, intervenors, and amici that filed briefs leading up to the February 27 oral argument—each with their own reaction to Argentina’s proposal and Appellees’ response. The parties would, of course, presumably be entitled to submit responses to these additional filings. That onslaught of further submissions would impose serious and harmful consequences on the Court and on Appellees. The additional burdens such filings would impose upon the Court are obvious and require no explication from the parties. Inviting an additional round of amicus filings would severely prejudice Appellees in a very concrete way. It would delay resolution of this appeal and therefore delay the implementation of a remedy for the irreparable harm this Court has held that Argentina has imposed on
Appellees for years and is continuing to impose with each new payment to the Exchange Bondholders without ratable payments to Appellees."
