What to make of the latest

The United States decided not to participate now in favor of Argentina as an UNINVITED amicus. This negative affected the decision from the IMF not to file a brief as announced.

Questions for the near future:

1) Will the Supreme Court ask the U.S. to file an INVITED brief?

2) If so, what the U.S. government will?

3) After the upcoming ruling from the Court of Appeals, Argentina will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if the ruling is negative (not decided yet particularly on the attachments of the Bank of New York). In this case, the interest to the U.S. government may be more important as the payment system of New York may be affected. In this case, the U.S. government may decide to file an UNINVITED amicus brief, but this remain to be seen.

4) Of course, if no amicus brief from the U.S. government, the situation with the Supreme Court will be difficult. What will the Court do absence U.S. help?

5) If the Supreme Court accepts the appeal (either the existing one or the upcoming), will it be with Stay of Execution of the rulings from the Court of Appeals?

Eugenio A Bruno
eab@garridolawfirm.com
 

IMF, France, the United States, Argentina and the U.S. Supreme Court

In this frency of Amici, I think what could affect the United States courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court in accepting to take the Argentina´s cert petition is a filing from the United States executive power.

IMF without the U.S. filing? Value to be seen.

IMF with the U.S.? More important.

France without the U.S.? For your newspapers and French-Argentine relationship only.

It is key to have the U.S. filing, either uninvited these days, or after an eventual petition from the U.S. Supreme Court, to boost the chances for the U.S. Supreme Court to accept the cert petition. 

Eugenio A Bruno
eab@garridolawfirm.com

Argentina Debt - Upcoming Analysis: Credit Events and Different Zones of Legal Risks (from low to very high)

Argentina Debt - Decision from the Belgian Court

The decision from the Belgian court because it may open the door to attach the flow of payments intended to Argentine bonds in Euros, payable in Europe through the BNY Brussels and Euroclear.

Eugenio A Bruno
eab@garridolawfirm

Argentina Debt: European Injunctions v New York Injunctions

The International Game of Injunctions

Lawyers for holders of Argentine bonds issued in Euros sent a letter to the NY Court of Appeals letting said court know that they had filed a petition before Belgian courts to ask for a "European injunction" against the possible "NY injunction" that may be issued by judge Thomas Griesa with respect to the flow of payments of those bonds. The purpose of the petition is to protect Bank of New York Brussels and Euroclear, from where the money goes through.

The Belgian court rejected such petition on the ground that said petition was "premature" as there is enough time, according to the court, to analyze the "merits" of the case.

A new hearing was scheduled for September, where the Belgian court will discuss the "merits" of the petition.

Eugenio A Bruno
Garrido Law Firm
eab@garridolawfirm.com

Quick comment - Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit of New York will all the information necessary to issue the ruling

Last-minute appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court - What´s next?

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