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
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Sunday, June 23, 2013
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
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/results.cfm?RequestTimeout=50000000
Eugenio A Bruno
Garrido Law Firm
Thursday, June 20, 2013
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"
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"
Monday, June 17, 2013
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
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2252210
Eugenio A Bruno
Garrido Law Firm
Sunday, June 16, 2013
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=
Eugenio A Bruno
Garrido Law Firm
Monday, June 10, 2013
Stats time: My take - Let me know about yours
Judicial Outcomes
Eugenio A Bruno
Garrido Law Firn
eab@garridolawfirm.com
.jpg)
"Pure Mathematics and Calculators"
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.
Eugenio A Bruno
Garrido Law Firn
eab@garridolawfirm.com
.jpg)
"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.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)